PRESIDENT GOODLUCK JONATHAN CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP

There have been widely circulated media reports last week that President Goodluck Jonathan allegedly informed PDP Governors who were reluctant to endorse him as a Presidential candidate that as a Captain of the PDP ship he will rather sink it than go down alone. The President allegedly made the threat in exasperation at what appeared to him to be the ambivalent attitude or overt lack of loyalty from some PDP Governors towards his aspiration, which he saw as an attempt to humiliate him. It was reported that he had complained that he had done everything the Governors wanted him to do, yet he was being abandoned by some of them to be humiliated by his main rival, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. The reports also mentioned that the Governors finally agreed to endorse the President after his threat for only one term, after which he promised them automatic tickets for the next elections in return.

          President Goodluck Jonathan’s spokespersons have since repudiated the reports as false, and were emphatic that the President could not have threatened to sink the PDP ship as a responsible leader. His spokesmen also stated that the President’s acceptance to serve for only one term was informed by his reading of the Constitution, which forbids any Nigerian from being sworn-in as President more than twice. On the allegation that the President promised the Governors automatic tickets during the 2011 elections, his spokespersons insisted that the President only expressed his support and preference for the return of PDP Governors who have done well.

          Given the widely-reported comments of the President, and the belated denials of his spokespersons, coupled with the charged atmosphere which surrounded the PDP NEC meeting at which the comments were allegedly made, many people will be inclined to give the reports some credence. It is widely known that the last PDP NEC meeting was pregnant with many explosive issues, which included the contentious clauses in the Electoral Act, the order of the Party’s Primaries and the intense maneuverings by President Jonathan’s rivals and Governors to determine its outcomes. It was also widely known that it was going to pitch the Governors particularly against the President on the issue of the Order of the Primaries, and therefore test the powers of both the President and the Governors. The Governors got what they wanted in terms of the Order of the Primaries, and were thus assured that the attempt to tilt the balance against them by the Party, and quite possibly the President, was defeated.

          It is therefore understandable if Mr. President felt some frustration at the seeming reluctance of some of the Governors to endorse him, and give him, at least in public, an edge over his archival, Atiku Abubakar. This may have explained the comment he allegedly made about sinking the ship with everyone in it. If President Jonathan had made those comments to get the Governors to support him, his choice of words and their wider meaning are most unfortunate and inappropriate. Even as a Party leader, if the President had threatened Governors with sinking the ship, meaning that he will make sure that if he doesn’t get the PDP Presidential ticket, they will also lose theirs, members of his Party, or at least his followers must question his leadership credentials. It will not be easy to dismiss this comment as mere political posturing either, because a threat of this nature from a President and leader of his party cannot be taken lightly.

          But by far a more worrying dimension to this issue is the concern expressed in many quarters that the intense emotions and frightening hostility which the campaigns in the PDP are generating are frightening to many Nigerians. Whether the President made those comments or not, or said something of similar nature, the fact that his opponents appear to have made much political capital out of them, suggests that this campaign will be very bitter indeed. His opponents have taken the reported threat of Mr. President to imply that he will also sink the Nigerian ship of he does not become the next President. Mr. President’s supporters will feel that this is an unfair extrapolation, but even these friends will admit that Mr. President’s record of expressing himself under pressure is not the most outstanding. Nigerians will recall his hasty exoneration of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) as a major gaffe. His comments on the Niger Delta since the bombings have not been entirely statesmanly. His recent threat to set the law after Atiku Abubakar for his comment on choosing between peaceful or violent change could also have been better considered.

          The basic issue in all these exchanges and the manner they are sensationalized by opposition camps is that aspirants are becoming more and more desperate to clinch the PDP’s tickets. Desperate people tend to do desperate things. The Nigerian people would like our leaders and politicians to move away from the brink with more responsible and less damaging rhetorics. Our President in particular should demonstrate the highest levels of sensitivity to his office, and the integrity and security of the Nigerian nation. His opponents have made much out of his gaffes. He will do much good to his person, office and his chances as a potential candidate if he is more circumspect in his public utterances. After all, he is the President, and all Nigerians look up to him as a source of comfort and assurances of their security. A good captain takes his ship and its passengers safely to their destination, and does not treat both as his hostages.  

LEGISLATOR’S STRONG-ARM TACTICS- 10th December, 2010.

Not long after the ill-fated attempts to force the C.B.N Governor, Malam Sanusi Lamido to submit to its bullying tactics by apologizing for or retracting statements credited to him to the effect that our Legislators take home about 25% of the nations entire overhead budget monthly, the House of Representatives on Wednesday approved an amendment in the Electoral Act which gives them automatic membership of their parties’ National Executive committees (NEC). This move was condemned in its totality by every strand of public opinion, including a resounding condemnation by all stakeholders at a recent Public Hearing into the Amendments to the Electoral Act. In fact overwhelming public opinion would have pronounced the attempted amendment as a dead issue after the manner it was roundly condemned at the Public Hearing, but apparently the public misjudged the resolve of the Legislators to have their way, even against the wishes and interests of the entire population which elected them. Significantly, even the chairman of the PDP who spoke against the proposed amendment condemned it, yet the PDP-dominated House of Representatives went ahead and passed the amendment.

          The case which the legislators made for themselves in support of the amendment is that Governors have exercised a dangerous and suffocating control over party matters, including the fate and political fortunes of serving legislators, such that a drastic step is needed to free the parties from their stranglehold. They see their automatic membership of their Parties as one carry of addressing this problem, because as the single largest bloc in the national Executive committee of their Parties, they will checkmate the influence and power of Governors in the decision-making process.

Yet another case made by the legislators is that they need access to their Parties’ National Executive Committees to be more familiar with party policies, and be better placed to represent the party and their Constituencies. A final argument which the legislators make in their favor is that the amendment will not give them any advantage or benefit as individual, serving legislators. Or the contrary, it will only redress a dangerous imbalance as it affects future legislators.

          All these arguments were made on the floor of the National Assembly during the Public Hearing, yet most stakeholders were not impressed. The dominant view at the Hearing was that the amendment is opportunistic, self-serving and insensitive Far solving the crippling absence of intra party democracy in all political parties, due largely to the larger-than-life influence of Governors, the amendment will only make the problem bigger, not solve it. The dictatorship of the legislators will replace the dictatorship of Governors. The historic and inherent rivalry which exists between Governors and Legislators will compound intra-party politics, and although Governors may lose some ground, National Executive Committee will be turned into unwieldy battlegrounds. The struggle for power and control of party machinery and influence will merely shift to new levels or areas. So there is no case to be made that the whole-sale and automatic membership of legislators in party National Executive Committees will enhance intra-party democracy.

          The argument that membership of their Parties National Executive committee will enhance their effectiveness in representing the parties and their constituencies, and therefore improve the overall quality of governance is also a weak one. Each party should decide for itself whether it wants legislators elected on its platform to be members of its NEC, as many do in their constitutions already. If the party has no provision for legislators in its NEC, is up to its legislators to make a case for inclusion, and not gang up with other legislators from other parties to legislate an unfair advantage across the board for themselves.

          The attempt by national legislators to confer upon themselves automatic membership of their parties’ NEC through an amendment of the Electoral Act is self-serving and immoral. Its timing could not have been worse, given the current poor image of the National Assembly in the nation. It has the added advantage of delaying the passage of the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010, in the event that President Goodluck Jonathan refuses to assent to it, which he should. People who complain of the absence of intra-party democracy should not act in a way that gives the impression that public opinion is irrelevant to their ambition. If our legislators will not respect the feelings of Nigerians, President Jonathan should show leadership and patriotism by refusing to assent to this provision.

FORMER PRESIDENT BABANGIDA’S THREAT TO QUIT THE PDP- 9th December, 2010.

Former military President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida is reported to have written to the national secretariat of his Party, the PDP, threatening to resign from the Party, unless it accepts and implements its own power rotation and zoning formula. The High Court in Abuja had last week ruled that the rotation formula is binding on all members, but declined to enforce it, insisting instead that it is an internal Party matter. If the Party implements the rotation formula on the grounds that it is legally binding and enforceable, it will bar President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting for the Party’s Presidential tickets. However, since the Court stopped short of enforcing the formula, it is left to the party to accept or reject it, or for the member who went to court to seek for its enforcement to appeal. It is already clear however that the party will not accept even the moral verdict against it, and has chosen to ignore the Court’s half-hearted attempt to deal with a patently political and sensitive matter.

Former President Babangida complains that the leadership of the Party is guilty of gross violations of its own Constitution, and that this will make it impossible for many members like him to remain members of the Party. He insists that the National Executive Committee of the Party must enforce the constitution of the Party in its totality, which includes the policy on rotation and zoning of party and public elective offices, right up to the office of President. 

This is not the first time President Babangida is demanding that his Party enforces the rotation and zoning policy, which would preclude President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting for the PDP’s Presidential ticket. Indeed, this is what informed his campaigns and involvement in the efforts to procure a northern PDP consensus around a single candidate. When he lost the bid to become the northern consensus candidate, former President Babangida appeared to have submitted to the decisions of the Northern Political Elders Forum, and some of his former close associates are now part of the Atiku campaign team. In fairness to him, former President Babangida who in actual fact was the only real threat to Atiku in the consensus arrangement, has so far, been true to his promise that he will accept the consensus verdict, and not work against it.

Nonetheless, no matter what spin is placed on the outcome of the consensus arrangement, the fact is that former President Babangida lost the selection process to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. His political profile and influence have been severely diminished by this loss, because Nigerian politics has no place for also-runs, only winners. Whether he was schemed out or lost to a better candidate in a selection process, it is still a fact that majority of Northern Political Elders believe that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar will provide a stronger challenge to President Goodluck Jonathan than former President Babangida.

This is not to make case that former President Babangida has also lost his right to play important roles in his Party and the nation, although it could be argued that his standing and impact would have been much higher if he had not ventured into this contest which he lost. After all, many people have made the case that he would have made a much better elder Statesman and kingmaker like Adamu Ciroma, than a Candidate in a selection process which basically would have made him a tribal or regional candidate.  The real question to ask is what impact former President Babangida’s threat would have. It is now obvious that most people are convinced that the Party leadership will not stop President Jonathan from running. Why, it should be asked, therefore, is President Babangida making this threat, knowing fully well that it will have no impact? Is he at the point of leaving the PDP and is therefore looking for an excuse? If former President Babangida acts on his threat and leaves the PDP, how much damage is he likely to inflict on it, or on Atiku’s chances of defeating President Jonathan at the Primaries? Is he looking for another political platform to contest for the Presidency? How much political capital does President Babangida have, and is it wiser to invest it in the PDP and help support the chances of a northern candidate, or better to invest it in his own personal ambition, possibly in another Party? Even if Babangida leaves the PDP and does not join another Party, is it not likely to be seen as a subversion of the consensus arrangement? It is also possible that former President Babangida is strengthening his hand and credentials as a leader of the North, and is therefore keeping the zoning issue on the hot burner for the PDP N.E.C’s meeting.

It is now beyond dispute that the PDP’s internal fights over its zoning and rotation formula will have a decisive and negative effect on its chances. Every effort will be made by the opponents of President Jonathan to stop him from securing the Party’s ticket, and former President Babangida’s threat is one of such efforts. Similarly, President Jonathan will leave no stone unturned to secure the ticket, even against strident complaints that he has no moral or legal right to do so.

The fight for the PDP ticket will be a bitter one indeed. This is why many observers will see Babangida’s threat as a mere attempt to break ranks with the resistance against President Jonathan’s ambitions. At any rate, if given the fact that Babangida’s political fortunes have diminished as a result of his loss to Atiku, many of his friends would have advised him to stay in the PDP and join forces with Atiku Abubakar and fellow losers to challenge President Jonathan. His political enemies will see his threat as vintage Babangida, a player who cannot be trusted not to have another card up his sleeve. At the twilight of his political career, it may be necessary for former President Babangida to think of how history will remember him, and the manner he deploys his considerable survival instinct and intelligence will be important in this regard.

For the nation, it is necessary to remind our leaders to pay very close attention to what is going on in Cote d’Ivoire where a disputed election between a Northern and Southern Candidate has resulted in a dangerous political stalemate, and has brought that country even closer to an all-out civil war. Nigeria’s only chance to avoid being another Cote d’Ivoire lies in our leaders respecting the rules of the game, operating within the laws of the land, and exhibiting the highest levels of maturity, patriotism and responsibility. The records of our leaders, especially those in the PDP in this respect is so far, is not reassuring. Nigerians should tell them in very clear terms not to destroy this country in the course of their pursuit of their personal ambitions.

STOLEN DIRECT DATA CAPTURE MACHINES OF INEC- 13th December, 2010.

Last week, the nation was shocked to hear that some of the machines being imported by INEC for the Registration of Voters were stolen at the Murtala Mohammed Airport. Although the Police say arrests have been made of suspects of the theft, and some of the stolen machines have been recovered, the information about the theft has been very disturbing indeed.

          The theft of these machines has raised serious concerns regarding their real motives. It is possible that lax security may have encouraged some petty thieves to steal these machines which are basically lap-top computers with some specially-designed features. But the public is entitled to ask whether there is a more sinister and disturbing motive behind this theft, which is that some people are either already involved in sabotaging the Registration Exercise by stealing the machines; or that they want to study the machines and use them for illegal registration purposes. There are also serious concerns about the nature and speed of police investigations into this matter, given the fact that public interest on this issue is extremely, and justifiably high.

          Even though some reports say that INEC has disclaimed ownership of these machines, there is a need to thoroughly verify who imported them, and for what purposes. INEC needs to assure the nation clearly and categorically that the machines are indeed not theirs if they are not. And if they belong to someone else the public needs to know who owns them. Many organizations have the need for, and do use Direct Data Capture Machines, and although they all use different software depending on what they are needed for, the fact that INEC is also involved in imparting at least 120, 000 of these machines makes it necessary for the security agencies to thoroughly investigate the whole issue surrounding the theft of these machines and give full information to the public.

The on-going political campaigns show clearly that the 2011 elections will be contested very bitterly. Already developments around the amendments to the Electoral Act, and the quarrels they are generating around the President, Governors, Legislators in the PDP, and the fear of other Parties and their contestants that the elections may not be free and fair are all reasons why every effort must be made to assure the public that the theft of these machines are not part of efforts to rig the elections even at this early stage. 

The manner in which these machines were stolen should also serve to raise the levels of concern and security by INEC and security agencies. INEC needs to take serious efforts to protect its sensitive materials, including its machines. These lap top machines are vulnerable to being snatched, smashed or burnt by saboteurs and thugs. Airport security also needs to be strengthened, not just around INEC materials, but also because of increasingly disturbing information of daily arrests of arms and ammunition from our Ports.

As we approach the 2011 elections, the need to protect the integrity of the electoral process and raise the levels of the security of the citizenry should be a matter of the highest national priority. Many people will try to subvert the elaborate arrangements being made to conduct free and fair elections, if only because they believe that all Nigerian elections can be rigged, and that Nigerians have come to live with stolen mandates. This time, they should not be allowed to succeed.         

THE CONTROVERSIES AROUND THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AMENDMENTS-14th December, 2010.

 As has been widely expected, the attempts to amend the 2010 Electoral Act around the particular interests of Legislators, as well as the inclusion of some other controversial clauses in the Act have generated a major debate within the PDP and the nation at large. These debates threaten the nature of the existing power relationships within the Parties, the position and prospects for success of the President, Governors and Federal and State Legislators with just a few months to the 2011 elections. They also have the potential to affect both quality of the final version of the Electoral Act being amended, as well the issue of the time of its passage. These are the same unnecessary debates and controversies which many stakeholders and other Nigerians predicted, and warned would arise from the self-seeking postures of those with responsibility to amend the Act and the Constitution.

          The attempt to legislate the automatic membership of the National Executive Committees of all Political Parties by all members of the Senate and the Federal House of Representatives has, as predicted, invoked the anger and hostility of Governors, against whom it is intended. Governors are now up in arms against the proposed amendment, and will use every available means to scuttle it, because they see in the amendment an attempt by the Legislators to reduce their powers of control over the Party. The Governors are likely to use their influence with Mr. President and some Senators to ensure that the clause is dropped. They will also use their extensive influence over the media and other means of shaping public opinion to wage a propaganda war against the Legislators, who are already being portrayed as greedy and insensitive by the public.

State legislators are also fighting the amended clause which deprives them of the right to be delegates at Congresses and Conventions. The proposed listing of persons qualified to be delegates apparently excludes them, and they are angry that they are being prevented from providing grassroots impact during Primaries. They will also resist the passage of this clause, using their own influence with State Governors and possible rapport with some elements in the National Assembly.

There are yet other battles being fought out. It is not clear whether the clause which now provides for a single, Abuja-based Convention instead of the State-based Congresses to select the Presidential candidate will be signed into law. Certainly, it will be the choice of President Goodluck Jonathan that it forms part of the Electoral Act, but other major players, particularly in the PDP, will fight this reversal with the entire arsenal at their disposal. The National assembly, as well as the PDP NEC, National Working Committee and the entire PDP decision-making organs will now become battlefields where these contentious issues will be fought out.

Such is the dominance of the PDP in the executive and legislative arms of government that opposition Parties’ views on these important matters hardly make any impact. This is a major limitation in a multi-party democratic system. Even more worrisome, however, is that these amendments and quarrels they generate appear to be designed around specific, narrow interest of key political players on the stage today. By the time the National Assembly and the President sort out the argument around what should, or should not be in our Electoral Act, the nation is likely to see naked ambitions and opportunistic attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of some interests which are already well known. This is not a good foundation for the conduct of free and fair elections. The attempts to achieve unfair advantages through legislation will also create a whole army of bitter rivals, who will try to take their pounds of flesh through other means. All these will make for a very volatile political environment, which will pose serious problems for the conduct of the elections.

    This medium has made the case several times that the only amendment which is necessary is one that moves the dates of the 2011 elections from January to April, 2011. All other amendments are opportunistic and self-seeking attempts, which in addition, will also increase the uncertainties over the conduct of the elections. Since it does not appear that elected leaders will exercise their mandates with responsibility and respect for public opinion and the sanctity of the electoral process, it is important that all Political Parties, N.G.Os, C.S.Os, the media and the public raise their voices against these destructive antics of our leaders. The nation needs an Electoral Act which forms the basis of credible elections, and it now appears that this requirement is too important to leave in the hands of our legislators alone. Nigerians need to say in clear terms that they should stop manipulating the legal framework of the 2011 elections by concluding the amendment processes immediately without tier particular interests as appendages. 

NORTHERN GOVERNOR’S MEETING IN ABUJA- 15th December, 2010

On Monday 11^th December, the Northern Governor’s Forum held its quarterly meeting in Abuja, for only the second time in almost 40 years it met outside Kaduna. The only other time it met outside Abuja was in the aftermath of the sectarian crisis in Jos, when it met in that City to show solidarity with the people of Jos. The Forum has met on a quarterly basis in a specially-designed building at the General Hassan Usman Katsina House, Kawo Kaduna since its inception more than 40 years ago. Kaduna State Government had provided support and a Secretariat for the Forum’s meetings, and all Governors had developed their Lodges and other elaborate infrastructure to make it convenient for Governors and their aides to attend the quarterly meetings.

The Northern Governors’ Forum emerged from the need for Governors of Northern States to discuss issues around the ownership and management of common assets, such as the New Nigerian Newspapers and the Northern Development Corporation (NNDC) and other common assets. They also used the forum to discuss and take common positions on other matters that affected the development of the North. Even during the era of the Military, and even against serious complaints from other parts of the country that the Forum was a political front for the interests of the north, the meetings continued. In reality, the Northern Governors’ Forum created the idea of a politically united North, and preservation of a northern identity and interests in the context of Nigeria. In spite of the creation of many States, the Forum of Northern Governors preserved the illusion that the north had interests to defend and protect against the rest of Nigeria, apart from discussing common assets and providing a political muscle in pursuit for some collective economic gains, such as the search for oil in the north.

          Since the return to democratic governance, the Northern Governors’ Forum had also assumed a deeper tinge of political coloration, in spite of the fact that the Governors represented different political parties. This has reinforced the impression that the north can rise above partisan divisions, when Governors from different Parties can find common political grounds in defense of northern interests. For instance, the Governors had, on many occasions taken common positions at the wider, National Governors’ Forum which brought together all the nation’s Governors. In fact, only two days ago, the Northern Governors resolved to oppose the move by Members of the Federal House of Representatives to legislate into the Electoral Act, their own automatic membership of their Parties’ National Executive Committees. On other occasions, the Northern Governors’ Forum quarreled over what appeared to some of them as attempts to use the Forum to further the interests of the dominant Political Party in the North, which is the PDP, such as during the attempts to procure a PDP consensus candidate.  

          The reasons which compelled the northern Governors to move their meeting from Kaduna to Abuja, and henceforth to rotate it around Northern State Capitals were attributed to the reluctance of the Governor of Kaduna State, Mr. Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa to provide the traditional venue of the meeting, under pressure from President Goodluck Jonathan who does not want the Governors to meet. Another reason given for the movement of the meeting venue outside Kaduna was that the Governor’s security could not be guaranteed. Although the Government of Kaduna State has dismissed both reasons as false and lacking any credibility, the fact that the Governors have announced their intention henceforth to abandon Kaduna as their permanent meeting venue, although they intend to retain it as a permanent Secretariat, is a major development in terms of the politics of the North in the context of Nigeria. In historical terms, this is a symbolic end of an era, and it will be recorded as the final evidence that the north has no significant political capital. Others will say that the north has fallen victim of the bitter political campaigns to produce the next President by the PDP, in which Kaduna State plays a pivotal role.

Perhaps it is inevitable that a political forum such as the Northern Governor’s Forum will eventually fall victim of these political intrigues. People who are familiar with the history and complexity of the north have always recognized that the attempts to preserve the illusion of a politically-united, homogenous north has always been challenged by the reality that the north is also the most politically heterogeneous and developed part of Nigeria. The façade of unity around core economic and political values was bound to clash with bitter, partisan loyalties of politicians in the north and at the national level, as this development has shown. It is also a fact that the strategic value of the shared assets of Northern States never amounted to enough incentive for northern Governors to preserve the forum. Many cynics in fact have dismissed the periodic meetings of the Governors as social gatherings, arranged only to allow Governors come to Kaduna for a few days to relax.

Now that the bubble has burst, some people may feel a sense of loss and nostalgia that Kaduna has ceased to play the role of the political centre of the North which it was since the days of the late Sardauna. If there are any such people, they should not lose much sleep. The New Nigerian Newspapers and the NNDC do not need Northern States Governors to meet every three months in Kaduna to survive and expand. After all, it could be asked what value these establishments have derived from the meeting? The New Nigerian Newspapers are in a sorry state today; the NNDC is just a mere shell with a political cover. In fact, it could be argued that the Governors have gained more from the existence of these institutions in Kaduna, than the other way round. Even the effort to launch the Sardauna Fund has not gone beyond its launching, with many people asking about its impact and the grand promises made by the Governors.

If Northern Governors’ meetings are rotated around Northern State capitals, and not held permanently in Kaduna, the people of Kaduna State are not likely to miss much. Meeting of Governors who want us to believe that they are still loyal to the ideals and values and legacies of the late Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardaunan Sokoto but who do not live their lives or govern in the manner he governed have very little value to the people of the north. Northerners need honest leaders that can engineer rapid economic progress, provide quality education for their children, serious investment in agriculture and health, as well as for them and assure them of peace and security. The entire north is a legacy of the Sardauna, and where Governors meet to discuss an almost extinct New Nigerian Newspapers or NNDC is of no practical significance. Northern Governors, like all other politicians are fighting, for their places during the forthcoming 2011 elections. The fact that they have abandoned their traditional meeting place in Kaduna is of no serious significance, since they have long abandoned the values and traditions of the former northern leaders.    

THE DEATH OF CHIEF ANTHONY ENAHORO- 16th December, 2010.

On Tuesday night, the nation lost Chief Anthony Enahoro, one of the few truly great Nigerian politicians who lived his entire life at the service of his fatherland. Chief Anthony Enahoro died at the age of 87 years at his residence in Benin City, Edo State. He had been ill for quite some time, but until a few months ago, he was active in the efforts to deepen the democratic traditions of the nation and push the frontiers of a federal system which in his views reflect the genuine needs of the Nigerian people.

          Chief Anthony Enahoro’s name and record in the service of Nigeria will be mentioned and listed among the most prominent and patriotic Nigerians. Appointed an editor of a newspaper at the very young age of 26, he used his paper to launch bitter and popular attacks against the colonial authorities, which led to his harassment by the colonial administration on many occasions. This early stand he took as a journalist showed a young and brilliant Nigerian with a great promise to affect the future of his country. He later became an active member of the opposition Action Group, known as AG, and was elected a member of the Western Regional House of Assembly in 1951.

          In 1953, Chief Enahoro moved the motion for self-government in Nigeria by 1956. His specific words were that “this house accepts as primary political objective the attainment of self government for Nigeria in 1956”. The motion was a profound challenge to rapidly decolonize Nigeria in 3 years, and was squarely in the tradition of the then nationalist, progressive Action group. One other Party, the NCNC supported the motion, but the Northern Peoples Congress, NPC opposed it, suggesting instead a more gradual, even piece-meal decolonization process, with each region choosing when it felt ready to accept self government. Instead of 1956, the NPC proposed self-government for Nigeria “as soon as practicable”.

          The position of Northern Nigeria which made the case for gradual self-government effectively scuttled the demand for self government in 1956, and the Southern media and politicians spared no effort to ridicule and humiliate northern leaders in Lagos over the stand of the North. Eventually different regions achieved self-government at different times, and Nigeria became independent in 1960, but the fire lit by nationalists like Anthony Enahoro in 1953 was largely instrumental in convincing the British that colonialism’s days are numbered in Nigeria.

          Chief Anthony Enahoro remained in the thick of Nigeria’s post independence politics, with the Action Group in national opposition. During the treason trials in 1962 during which Chief Obafemi Awolowo was jailed, Chief Enahoro fled to Britain from where he was deported back to Nigeria in 1963, and sentenced to 13 years for his involvement in the attempted coup against the government of Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. 

          After the overthrow of the civilian administration, Chief Enahoro was pardoned by General Yakubu Gowon and was appointed a Minister. He was also actively involved in the negotiations for a resolution of the Nigerian Civil War on the Federal side from 1967-1970. With the return of democratic rule in 1979, Chief Enahoro broke his traditional ties with Chief Obafemi Awolowo and joined the NPN, where he was schemed into irrelevance by people like Chief Tony Anenih. He remained on the margins of Nigerians politics, until the military coup of 1983 when he because a notable critic of military administration.

          Following the abortion of the elections of June 1993, Chief Enahoro inspired and formed the National Democratic coalition (NADECO), and became its Chairman. This coalition provided the only real challenge to General Abacha’s and the military’s rule, and it can rightly lay claim to success in keeping the spirit of the fight against military dictatorship alive, in spite of many threats and harassment, including murders, of its members. With the return of democratic governance, Chief Enahoro turned his attention his to other pet concern, which is the need for the structural reform of the Nigerian federal system. He also formed and led the Pro-National Conference Organization (PRONACO) which attempted to provide an alternative constitution to the Nigerian people.

          Chief Enahoro has left many legacies. For today’s politicians, he has left a legacy of principled politics, of vision and courage, which is sadly lacking. For the nation, he has left a legacy of a leadership which is totally committed to a constant search for improvement in the manner it organized its affairs. For young Nigerians, he has left a legacy of politics with conviction and honor.

          Chief Anthony Enahoro has died at a time Nigeria needs leaders of his vision, courage and persistence. It is quite possible that he may have died with the regret that the nation he and his compatriots fought so hard to preserve and unite is still showing signs of massive structural weaknesses. It is also possible that he died lamenting the poor quality of our democratic system, where leadership seeks only to preserve itself through fair and foul means, and politicians see politics purely as an avenue for self-enrichment. The greatest honor this nation can  bestow on Chief Anthony Enahoro is to ensure that we rediscover and imbibe those values which inspired him to live and die as a national hero in the service of his fatherland.  

THE FRIGHTENING QUARRELS IN THE PDP- 17th December, 2010

The reports of bitter quarrels among the top contenders for the PDP’s Presidential tickets are scaring the Nigerian people. If these quarrels are limited to issues relating to the records and credentials of the contenders, which is an integral part of the political system, the nation will not worry. But Nigerians are being treated to statements and postures which frighten them, from leaders and politicians who should give them assurances that the 2011 elections will not be an event that will threaten our peace and national security.

          On Thursday, 16^th of December, President Jonathan threatened his co-aspirant for the PDP’s ticket, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar with the full weight of the law if he continues to make what he described as treasonable statements that threaten the sovereignty and security of the Nigerian nation. The State Security Service also expressed its concern over what it described as reckless utterances by politicians, and warned that the nation’s security should not be sacrificed on the alter of political ambitions of politicians.

          The trigger to this latest round of quarrels was the statement made a few days ago by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, quoting the late Frantz Fanon to the effect that those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar made the statement during the meeting organized by the Northern Political Elders Forum with the Igbo Political Forum, South South Unity Forum and the Yoruba Redemption Group in Abuja on Wednesday December 15^th.

                ^{On Thursday 16th of December, 2010, President Jonathan threatened}  that when he moves against people making treasonable statements such as Atiku Abubakar’s, no one should complain that he is being persecuted because of politics. The President warned further that members of the PDP should not destroy their own platforms, and advised the Party Chairman to design a Code of Conduct for all of the Party’s aspirants.

          In response to the President’s threats, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar said he is ready to be arrested over what he said. He defended his statement as a quote, and  his spokesman also said that Atiku Abubakar’s record as democrat who is committed to the path of constitutionalism is inconsistent with recommending a path at variance with his long commitment to democracy in Nigeria. He further said that even at the Forum where he made the statement with the quotation, he had said that violent change is not what is needed in Nigeria. Atiku Abubakar also said that no Nigerian  leader in recent memory has caused so much bitterness, division, suspicion and animosity among Nigerian people like President Goodluck Jonathan because of his ambition to run in 2011. He accused President Jonathan of being instrumental to the crisis in the PDP, and wondered how a President that tore the PDP apart and caused so much bitterness within his own ruling party because of his ill-advised ambition, could turn around and accuse anyone else of causing tension.

          These heated exchanges are bound to leave their impressions on the minds of the Nigerian public over the manner the PDP is conducting its affairs. As a ruling party with overwhelming majority in all elective offices at all levels of the Federation, the PDP appears to be nursing a dangerous deathwish. Its key aspirants are fighting a most undignifying battle that threatens to cost it its position as the leading party. Its Governors are involved in a series of battles with the PDP legislators in the National Assembly. The party is still attempting to knock together an Electoral Act that is likely to mirror only the ambition and schemings of its leaders and members. It is behaving as if it has no opposition which can capitalize on its monumental weaknesses, or it is assuming that whatever its weaknesses, it will capture power in 2011.

          These problems in the PDP do not speak well of a party which claims to be the largest in Africa. If it is satisfied with size alone, it needs to be reminded that many of its loyal supporters want it to win the next elections and win it freely and fairly, not self-destruct in the run-up to the elections. Other Nigerians just want to be assured that our leaders will not put the nation at risk of a major breakdown of law and order over their ambitions. Not all Nigerians have the means to leave the country for safer climes when we have a crisis, or lock ourselves up behind expensive personal security when politics degenerates into a major crisis.

          It is time that our leaders and politicians find a Forum for a meeting to lay some basic ground rules for their conduct. Since the PDP has proved spectacularly unable to exercise restraint over its aspirants and other leaders to operate with decorum and sensitivity to national unity and security, it may be necessary for other Party Leaders and Elder Statesme to insist on a Political Summit on the 2011 elections. The PDP should be invited to the Summit. If it attends, it would have shown that it is a responsible party which respects the Nigerian people. If it refuses to attend, the nation will know which party is threatening our collective security and well-being, and will deal with it in the context of the democratic choices available to us.                       

GENERAL BUHARI’S DISCLAIMER- 20th December, 2010

During an interview he granted to the BBC on Saturday 19^th December, 2010, General Muhammadu Buhari, the leader of the Congress for Progressive Change (C.P.C) declared that he would not investigate past corrupt leaders if Nigerians elect him President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The General also promised that he would not seek legal redress from any Court of the land in the event that he loses the 2011 general elections.

          It is a major understatement to say that General Buhari’s pledge not to investigate past leaders against whom cases of corruption may have been established will disappoint many Nigerians. The reason he gave for this stand is that if he decides to investigate past leaders, he will spend his entire tenure without achieving anything. This immediately suggests that General Buhari is aware of the deep-seated and pervasive nature of corruption, waste and abuse in Nigeria, especially around people who wield State Power. He said what he will do instead is to draw a battle line, in agreement with the legislature, to ensure that anyone found guilty of corruption, is charged. This way, according to him, there will no more be untouchables, or people above the law in Nigeria. In other words, past leaders who were corrupt can sleep in peace under a Buhari Presidency, but all new cases of corruption will be dealt with appropriately.

          General Buhari’s comments on a blanket pardon for past leaders who may have committed acts of corruption will shock and disappoint his teeming followers and others who identified him with principled, consistent and unwavering commitment to the fight against corruption and enthronement of good governance. Many people may say that General Buhari is just being political by assuring those powerful forces who have ruined our economy and secured power that he is not a threat to them. However, many others will see his statement as a monumental capitulation which will severely dent his hard-earned image. If General Buhari thinks that a promise not to investigate, where necessary, cases of corruption by past leaders will give them the assurances they need not to fight against him, he is badly mistaken. The people he is targeting with his statement do not trust him, and will never trust him; and they will fight him no matter what he says to them or about them. They have fought against each other; and have exposed each other; and with or without Buhari they will continue to do so. People  who loot the public treasury, or take massive bribes, or sell our assets for fractions of their value do not trust anyone like General Buhari when he says they will be safe under his leadership.

          The people who will be most disappointed by General Buhari’s undertaking are the poor and powerless, as well as millions of other Nigerians who believe that General Buhari represents a key to a future Nigeria where past corruption, when proven, will be punished, and that this will serve as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to plunder our resources once again. These people who believe in him, if they had the chance, will remind General Buhari that he has no right, and they will certainly not give him their mandate to turn a blind eye on past abuses by leaders.

While everyone will agree with him that embarking on a wild search for crimes against past leaders, and following every allegation or suspicion will tie up his hands and time as a leader, no Nigerian will accept that Gen Buhari can give a blanket pardon to proven cases of corruption just to win elections. There are already many celebrated cases, some under prosecution, others under investigation, involving many leaders, from Presidents, Vice Presidents, Governors, Ministers and many others. No doubt, given the widespread nature of high-level corruption, even as we speak, new schemes are being hatched to plunder public resources. If General Buhari were to become President, will he draw his line on these cases when they surface? If General Buhari were to become President, he will not only swear on the Qur’an to do justice to the interests of all Nigerians, but the people who would have voted him into power will expect him to bring every corrupt act, once proven or requiring investigation, to book. If he chooses where to draw his own line, neither God nor the citizens of Nigeria will forgive him, and those who he thinks will be afraid to commit new corrupt acts will not fear him or respect him. If Nigerians give General Buhari a mandate to govern, it will not be his to do with it as he wishes. On the contrary, it will be a mandate to clean up our nation, restore responsible governance and the faith of the citizens in their leaders, and deal ruthlessly with those who believe they are above the law, past, present or in the future. He will not do this without stepping on toes.

          The General has also said he will not seek judicial relief if he loses the elections. This position may very well be informed by the General’s frustrations and experiences with the judicial system in the past, or more specifically, with the adjudication of election cases. Whatever his motives for this assertion, many of the General’s Party members will remind him that that will not be a personal decision of his to make. Party members, and the decision-making organs of his Party will have a right to decide what to do in the event that the Party loses the Presidential contest. If they feel sufficiently aggrieved, they will exercise their right to seek judicial relief, and General Buhari, if he is indeed a democrat, will have to respect their wishes. The mandate they will give him to run on their Party platform is theirs, not his personal property, unless he wants the world to believe that the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC in his  personal property to do as he wishes, and all followers are mere, disposable appendages.

          General Muhammadu Buhari’s promise not to investigate past leaders for corruption may be intended as a political ploy to widen the base of his political support and reduce the hostility of powerful forces and interests who fear that his Presidency may expose their past corrupt deeds, will not serve any other purposes than to damage his hard-earned reputation as a clean leader who wants to clean up Nigeria. General Buhari’s best strategy is to remain consistent, and either sink or swim on his principles and reputation. If he tries to look like all the other politicians who make vague and compromising promises just win votes, his millions of followers will abandon him.

          Similarly, his undertaking not to challenge his possible electoral loss in court suggests that he is placing his personal preferences over those of his Party. He should respect his Party as superior to him, and should also pay attention to those who may also stand on the platform of the CPC and lose elections. Should these people not exercise their rights to challenge in Court, in case they are not satisfied with their losses? It is time for General Buhari to reassure his followers that he is still the principled, honest leader they want, and not a politician who thinks he owns a personal political party, and can rule Nigeria only as he wishes. 

THE 2011 ELECTIONS: NO ISSUES, ONLY ASPIRANTS

A major problem for our democracy is how little those who aspire to lead us care about sharing with the electorate and citizens their visions, plans and priorities when or if they are elected. This problem is most pronounced as we move towards the 2011 elections. With barely four months to elections that will produce Presidents, Governors and lawmakers, there is hardly any discussion on issues or plans for dealing with underdevelopment, poverty, insecurity, unemployment especially among our young, corruption, bad leadership, and decaying infrastructure. What we see daily on the pages of newspapers are insults and other damaging information calculated to impugn the integrity and records of opponents. Other opposition parties are silent, either because they have no plans, or no money to undertake expensive advertorials, or no enemies to insult. Even more worrying is the fact that the elections which will hold in April 2011 has no legal framework, since leaders and politicians are busy trying to legislate advantages to themselves in the Electoral Act.

          With the way the maneuvers and schemings are going on in the PDP, ACN, ANPP and CPC, Nigerians will not know who will be candidates until well into January, or even February 2011. Until then, the aspirants will fight bloody battles that will do major injuries to their integrity and their chances, and the chances of their Parties, to win elections. The battle between President Jonathan and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is dirty, bloody, and in the end, is likely to do serious damage to the PDP. They are busy buying up pages in our newspapers to publish damaging propaganda against each other, rather than informing potential delegates  why they are better choices. The amount of money they spend in these campaigns against each other would have been better utilized by letting Nigeria know how they will deal with our many problems, and why delegates should consider them better electoral materials. By the time either of them emerges as PDP’s candidate, there will be no time to know why they are better candidates than other Parties. Their battles would also have bitterly divided their Party, and created many enemies for them who may or may not leave the Party, or, as we say in Nigeria, commit anti-Party.

          But other Parties are not necessarily any better in terms of convincing Nigerians that they are better options. The CPC which has a major following, has huge organizational problems as week, and the entire energies and attention of its popular leader, General Muhammadu Buhari are taken up with dealing with lower-level issues which an effective organizational structure would have dealt with, so that he can acquaint Nigerians with his vision for change. The Party stands the risk of losing many elected positions due to its many internal, organizational problems, and the dominant position of its leader who is overwhelmed by the centrality of his position. The Action Congress of Nigeria is finding it very difficult to break out of its traditional stronghold, which is the Southwest, and is therefore unable to tell Nigerians its vision for transforming Nigeria. The much-touted and long-awaited strategy for an electoral alliance between the CPC and the ACN has been delayed beyond a point where it will produce any positive result, other than producing a joint Presidential candidate. How much time will they have, after these protracted negotiations, to tell Nigerians why it is the best choice? Are Nigerians going to be asked to vote for a northern and southwestern ticket for the Presidency alone, without knowing how this ticket intends to deal with our problems? In other words, are we going to vote for a Hausa or  Fulani and Yoruba man or woman only because of their tribes? The same thing can be said for the attempts to portray President Jonathan as the candidate for Nigerian Christians and the Southern part of Nigeria, and Atiku Abubakar as the candidate of Muslims and people of the north.  

          Other Parties like the ANPP, UPGA, Labor Party, DPP and the many other smaller Parties are hardly making any visible impact in terms of convincing Nigerians that they have plans and strategies for dealing with our many problems. Many have huge internal problems as well, in spite of their sizes. Rich members in these Parties still dominate them, and are daily manipulating their internal democratic processes to ensure that they keep a firm grip on Party matters and their own interests.

          There are many other politicians aspiring to be flag bearers of their parties, who also have good ideas, visions and strategies for dealing with Nigeria’s problems, but they are being squeezed out by the big bosses who control every activity in their Parties. Even if they eventually get tickets, Nigerians are not likely to hear of these people’s plans, and therefore make informed choices.

It is most unfortunate indeed, that in April 2011, Nigerians will be made to choose between candidates who will stand on the platforms of their tribes, religion or wealth, and not on their visions, plans and strategies for solving our problems. Money is being spent in newspaper, radio and television advertisements to destroy the character and records of opponents, and not to provide Nigerians with information that will allow them to make informed choices in 2011. Other parties which do not have billions are not being heard. Tribe and religion are being put forward as issues, not the capacity of aspirants to lead Nigeria with honesty, integrity and competence. The campaigns at State and National levels are being fought with such desperation and bitterness that their fallouts are most likely going to lead to violence and massive disputes both within the parties and between supporters. Instead of looking forward to lively, informed debates and expositions on plans and programmes, we are being dragged into potential conflicts by powerful politicians who believe their only qualifications to elective offices will be their victory over opponents in the propaganda war.

Nigerians want a peaceful conduct of the 2011 elections which gives them the chance to make informed choices among candidates. These politicians who are spending millions in campaigns against each other should spend part of that money to tell us what they will do if we vote for them. We want Delegates who will elect them to know that they represent better choices for their Parties, and not how much they will be paid to nominate them as Candidates. We want Party Primaries to be transparent, free and fair, and to produce candidates which will conduct an orderly and peaceful campaign. We want elections that will not have any casualties, other than those who are rejected by the electorate in an open, free and fair election.            

THE 2011 ELECTIONS AND ITS POLITICAL CONTEXT

May I register my profound appreciation to the Kaduna State Chapter of the N.B.A for this opportunity to contribute to the national endeavour to police the 2011 elections, and ensure that they do reflect the will of the electorate Let me also thank the Association for providing me the leverage to choose a focus for the lecture, and admit from the onset that events in Cote d’Ivoire have been largely instrumental in my choice of the subject matter.

          As we speak, the ECOWAS sub-region, the African Union and the International Community are all involved in attempts to prevent the escalation of a major crisis arising from the disputed results of the recent elections in Cote d’Ivoire , where two Heads of State have been sworn-in, and a simmering, though low-level Civil War is threatening to engulf the nation. Our own President, who is at the heart of some of the most contentious and divisive issues in the run-up to our own 2011 Elections, personally chaired the ECOWAS Summit which upheld the elections of the opposition leader, Allasane Outara, but there is no evidence or guarantee that President Gbabgo, who appears to have lost to him, will yield to the will of the people, the pressure ECOWAS or to the international community. Perhaps his resistance may be further fuelled by the feeling that many of those who sat in judgment at the ECOWAS Summit over his situation are not necessarily innocent of the same charges against him.

It is very important that Nigerians pay very close attention to events in Cote d’Ivoire, given the similarities and uncanny parallels which exist between our two countries. The North-South divide which are exacerbated by politics are real in our two countries. We also share in common ethnic and religious differences which are routinely exploited for political  gains; massive economic disparities between the North and South; a history of prolonged insurgency and series of disputed elections which have threatened national security and survival of the democratic system. Cote d’Ivoire has been effectively balkanized by different political forces in the last three years. Our own run-up to the elections are re-incarnating dormant primordial and parochial sentiments which have the potential to assume real significance in the event of widely-disputed results before, during or after the elections. In both our countries, there is no elite consensus around the basic fundamentals of the political and electoral process, and the fights within the PDP in particular over its zoning and rotation policy have exposed the dangerous decline in the power of a national political elite to determine the direction of political development.

Nigeria is of course a much larger and more complex country than Cote d’Ivoire, and these similarities do not have to be interpreted literally, but our size and complexity is also the reason why our problems may assume a much larger and more complex dimension.

Those who feel that the parallel being drawn is alarmist, need only to assess the impact of the current maneuvers to secure real political advantages by politicians and leaders who have responsibilities for ensuring that the 2011 elections are credible, and do not therefore provide a basis for major national crises. Only two days ago, Members of the House of Representatives approved a clause in the Electoral Act being reviewed, which seeks to make all serving members of the National Assembly automatic members of their respective parties’ National Executive Committees (N.E.C). This decision by the legislators represents the most brazen disregard for public opinion which overwhelmingly warned against it. It also represents the lowest form of opportunism and self-service, the type which deprives key players in the politic al process of any respect from the public, and makes it easier for others to seek to tilt the ground unfairly in their favor. After a` Public Hearing roundly denounced the plan to use their positions to legislate an advantage to themselves, the decision of the legislators has left an incredulous public to wonder what public interest will be served by the amendment. Those among us who think that people who are supposed to make laws for the Peace, Progress and Good Government of Nigerians should ordinarily be above this type of crass and short-sighted opportunism need to ponder over why they would risk both public odium as well as the possibility that President Goodluck Jonathan may not assent to the provision and the Act as amended. Perhaps the legislators, who threw out the clause which made all political appointees of Mr. President and Governors automatic delegates at Congresses and Conventions, know something the nation does not know. For instance, it is legitimate to ask whether there is a trade-off in the works, which will give Mr. President the amendment which will re-introduce the single National Convention in Abuja, in exchange for approving the contentious amendment under review. This way, Mr. President avoids State-based Primaries, and the legislators become their Parties’ NEC members, and therefore gain a strategic foothold to fight Governors, who are the real targets of the amendment. As NEC members, legislators as the single largest bloc will largely determine what happens in the Party, the fate of candidates, including themselves, and therefore give them a most unfair advantage.

If this amendment were to be passed, it will put Governors at a great disadvantage. They will fight back, possibly through prevailing on Mr. President not to assent to it. If Mr. President chooses to pander to the muscle of the Governors, in view of their present overwhelming control of the parties (actually we are basically talking of the PDP here) and the possibility that they will “deliver” him delegates, the legislators would have lost out. It he declines to assent to the amendment, the possibility exists that the National Assembly will exercise an override veto to pass it, given its apparent popularity and the dominance of the PDP in the legislature. It is also possible that a way can be contrived to ensure that a win-win situation is secured, with Mr. President being assured of a major advantage in the selection process, legislators securing the nod of the Governors that they will not face hostility during their attempts to return to their seats, and Governors retaining their commanding control of the party machinery.

But if these maneuvers will produce any result, it will have to be secured at the expense of the conclusion of the process of amending the 2010 Electoral Act. This is the area which poses a major threat to the conduct of the forthcoming elections. As we speak, the extant law which Governs the electoral process is the 2006 Electoral Act, but it does not contain some of the amendments which have been made, or are being made in the 2010 Act. INEC has put out a timetable which is contingent on the assumption that election dates will be moved from January 2011 (as in the 2010 Act) to Apart 2011, (as in 2006 Act). Until the 2010 Act as amendment is finalized, the date of the elections is still January 2011. This audience is also fully aware that the legality of the Constitutional Amendments are currently before the supreme court for interpretation. There are, arguably, issues in the Electoral Act which are contingent on the amendments to the Constitution, and so may have to await the resolution of the dispute around the amended constitution.

The management of the 2011 elections will pose major challenges, because of major issues which will affect the quality and credibility of the elections are still unfolding, even as we speak. I have referred to the attempts to use the opportunities provided by the need to amend the Electoral Act to seek unfair advantages. We have not heard the last on these attempts, but there are genuine fears that they will affect critical timelines for major activities.

The forthcoming Registration of Voters will test the resolve of INEC, Political Parties and politicians to their limits, essentially because it will be conducted within a two-week period under a most intensely politicized environment and atmosphere. Even when organized in less volatile and challenging environment, registration of voters has always been vulnerable to being hijacked by politicians. The technology being adopted by INEC, as well as the possibility that it has a plan ‘B’ in the form of a manual register is not itself a foolproof guarantee that politicians will not seek to exploit its weaknesses. The possibility of theft of the Direct Capture Machines or outright sabotage in enough numbers to render the exercise useless in many areas; the possibility that politicians will mobilize millions to register more than once in the belief that the technology will not cope with detecting it, the deployment of widespread violence to prevent the exercise taking place in many parts of the country; and the simple fact that the two weeks may be insufficient to capture 70 million voters in Nigeria, with our penchant for last-minute response are all real threats. I have not raised issues such as the availability of the technology, training and deployment of staff to undertake the exercise because INEC has assured the nation that these will not pose problems.

The atmosphere under which the registration of voters will take place has to be controlled by a strong political will and a robust and credible security infrastructure. This is where the frightening quarrels, particularly within the PDP, and the involvement of the person and office of the President in these disputes will have a telling effect on the manner government deals with breaches and abuses of the process. There is little hope that the arguments over zoning and rotation in the PDP will be settled before its Congresses or Convention. On the contrary, the quarrels are likely to become more bitter and divisive. Ordinary citizens and a large army of professional political fixers may detect a weakness at the political level as well as a will to deal decisively with major breaches and abuses, to wreck havoc on the election timetable, starting with the Registration of Voters.

To use one or two possible scenarios, it may be safe to say that if Atiku Abubakar loses the PDP ticket to President Jonathan, there will be a price to pay in terms of some restiveness at the political level and a threat to security in the North and other parts of Nigeria. Similarly, if President Jonathan loses to Atiku, the same will happen. How would the President, who may be both the source of a problem and its solution react? The weakness of opposition parties and the possibility that they may not achieve their strategic alliances in time to mitigate the fallout of the PDP contest will be another negative factor. The tendency to adopt violence as a major political strategy will also pose another problem, and the security infrastructure will be stretched to deal with it, in a context where Niger Delta and sundry threats in the north are also engaging our security agencies.

The political context of the 2011 elections poses the greatest threat to the possibility that they will be credible, free and fair. The entire leadership is involved in bitter disputes centered around their own fortunes. Major decisions are being delayed or manipulated, with the objective of securing short-term, parochial gains. INEC and the 2011 elections are the mercy of crass and damaging opportunism, which jeopardize the conduct of free and fair elections literally by the day. As I observed at a different forum, we appear to be in a race to political apocalypse, in a manner engineered to slow the process of preparing for the 2011 elections, or ensuring that they do not hold at all!

But just in case many of us feel depressed, I do have faith that the doomsday scenario can be avoided, provided.

(I)                           The Supreme Court rules or the dispute over the legality of the constitutional amendments very soon;

(II)                          All amendments to the Electoral Act 2010, except those which move the election from January to April 2011 are dropped, and the Act is given effect indefinitely

(III)                       Politicians and leaders convince a summit to establish  aground rules for the 2011 elections;

(IV)                       INEC is encouraged to speak out without restrictions on issues which impinge on its operations and the wider political environment;

(V)                          Political parties, C.S.Os and N.G.Os raise their levels of vigilance over threats to the electoral process and the elections;