FREE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Those who had hoped that a Jonathan Presidency may facilitate a functional and constitutionally-prescribed relative autonomy of the Legislature from the stranglehold and suffocating interference of the Executive will be bitterly disappointed with on-going efforts to stamp the influence of the Executive over the leadership tussles of the Legislature. Reports of the deep involvement of President Jonathan and the leadership of the PDP in the selection processes of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well as other Principal Officers of the two chambers suggest that the nation is not likely to see the Legislature operate with the autonomy and integrity which was envisaged and prescribed for it by the Constitution.  Without this, our democratic system will be severely limited in its function and impact, and both the Executive and Legislative arms will continue to compromise each other, to the detriment of healthy, inter-arm relations.

          The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has made adequate provisions for the autonomy and interdependence of the three arms of government. Although no man-made system works perfectly, at the most minimal level, the Executive is meant to implement laws made by the legislature, while the judiciary adjudicates on disputes. All three arms depend on each other on many vital areas, and this makes the achievement of harmony in their relations, and respect for each other, vital in the manner the democratic process functions. Any encroachment on an essential function of one or two of them by the other will represent an abuse of the democratic process, and an assault on the right of Nigerians to enjoy the full benefit of the system.

          The rather public and less-than-dignified maneuvers to ensure that Senator David  Mark is retained as Senate President cast a rather dim light on the integrity of the upper legislative chamber. The President’s hands showed very clearly in the efforts to ward off the opposition to Senator David Mark, and it will be difficult not to assume that at some stage in the life of this Senate, the President of the Senate will feel that he owes his position to Mr. President, and not to his colleagues. Even given the dominance of the PDP Senators, the game could have been played with greater sensitivity and decorum for the importance of the upper chamber and the need to maintain some semblance of autonomy of the Legislature. There are also many non-PDP Senators who have a right to have their say, even if not their way, in the emergence of their leaders. The PDP’s intolerance for intra-party democracy appears to be reaching and influencing the legislature. This is dangerous for our democracy, and unacceptable in a country which desperately needs to break away from its past, when a powerful President decided what happened in both chambers.

          If what happened in determining the Presidency of the Senate is regrettable, what appears to be happening in the House of Representatives is condemnable. Since the conclusion of the elections of the 9^th of April, 2011, very powerful forces linked to Mr. President, or having his ear, have attempted to impose a leadership on the House of Representatives. Many groups have sprung up among the members to resist this attempt, particularly since the zone from which the favored leader hails from has only a few members in the House. The effort is also supposedly being masterminded by former President Obasanjo, who, during his time, had made the imposition of Senate Presidents and Speakers of the House of Representatives a personal pastime. Many old and new members of the House will resist this latest foray by a former President who in any case has lost political control of his immediate constituency.

          The attempt to change the rules by which leaders of both Chambers will be selected or elected is an abuse due process, and a violation of the right of legislators to elect their leaders. The raging controversy over financial matters under the former Speaker is sufficient grounds to make the case that the executive arm should distance itself from the efforts to manipulate the emergence of the leadership of the National Assembly by Mr. President and the PDP leadership.

          President Goodluck Jonathan should start his administration with sincerity and a transparent respect for constitutionalism. The only reason why the executive arm will fight to determine the leadership of the legislature is to limit its effectiveness to check the excesses or abuses of the executive arm. Nigerians want to see all elected officials do their work as their mandate demands. President Jonathan should respect the will and wish of Nigerians.        

A DIFFICULT PAST, A CHALLENGING FUTURE

It all seems so far away, a whole lifetime away, when on a bright Tuesday morning on the 29th of May, 2007, late Umaru Musa ‘YarAdua mounted the rostrum to be sworn-in as President of the Federal Republic. His pervasive sense of purpose and the palpable sense of sincerity and the profound nature of his commitments largely dispelled the widespread disquiet over the manner he and his deputy were plucked from relative obscurity by the imperial and larger-than-life power of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and installed as PDP’s  candidates in an election universally-acclaimed to be the worst in the history of democratic elections the world over. The nation was poised to go through another round of bitter recriminations around elections, and was totally unprepared for the earth-shaking admission by the new President that the elections that brought him to power were severely flawed. He also made other profound statements in his speech,

________________________________________________________________________

* Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed is Executive Vice-Chairman, QURA MANDATE CONSULTING, KADUNA and Executive Chairman, D.I.T.V/Alheri Radio, Kaduna. He is also a Visiting Reader in Political Science at the Usmanu Danfodio University Sokoto. He comments on public affairs at www.baba-ahmed.blogspot.com 

but his comments over the elections, and his public commitment to undertake a major overhaul of the electoral process caught the attention of Nigerians and the world. It did more than that: it took the sting out of the valid case of the opposition that the elections were an organised, brazen robbery. The nation saw a leader who combined a seeming political naivety with genuine sincerity in ‘YarAdua, and when he declared his assets in public and came up with the slogan of the servant leader, a large section of the nation’s public opinion thought that out of the rubble of a dangerously corrupt political and electoral process, a leader may yet emerge who will rekindle the hope that Nigerians may live under a genuinely-elected leadership that will govern with honesty and competence. His seven-point agenda appeared well conceived. His demeanour and initial steps as President was in sharp contrast to the familiar domineering face of the previous leadership. Even his pedigree as a creation of Obasanjo’s ambition to retain firm control over the nation’s affairs began to disappear as the nation saw some semblance of a steely character in a seemingly humble leader. It looked like Umaru Musa ‘YarAdua was going to be his own man, and Nigeria was going to have, for once, a leader who had vision and the character to actualise it. Many Nigerians saw a glimmer of hope that we could have a genuine break from the past under the leadership of a graduate politician who was neither serving nor retired military officer.

          Alas, the tall dreams of those heady days in late 2007 and early 2008 began to disappear when President ‘YarAdua’s health began to falter.  The race to achieve goals and targets slowed down considerably. The vision became blurred, as a small circle, which became progressively smaller, began to run the administration and the nation. The promised all-important reforms of the electoral process was abandoned half-way, hijacked and trashed by the lowest forms of short-sightedness and political opportunism. Targets on power, infrastructure, land reforms and the fight against corruption were missed or abandoned. Some element of security in the Niger Delta was achieved at a phenomenal cost, including the damaging potential that its manner of resolution could open up other areas of conflict.

          In the end, the ‘YarAdua Presidency limped to its end, leaving behind a terrible legacy which will haunt the Jonathan Presidency and the 2011 elections. A good man, and one who would have made a very good President became himself hostage to a small clique which, in the manner it handled his illness, created the impression that an entire nation could be subordinated to the designs of a few people. Worse, the clique created the impression of contempt and disdain for all forms of authority, but especially for the constitutional authority and personality of the Vice President, who later became President Goodluck Jonathan. The caricature of a Hausa Fulani cabal treating a Vice President who is a minority from the South South with contempt, and keeping him and everyone else at bay became firmly imprinted among those close to the Vice President, and, quite possibly in the mind of the Vice President himself.

          The circumstances under which President Jonathan became President cannot be removed from the manner he approached his bid for the Presidency. President Jonathan required incredible legal gymnastics and a rare nation-wide political consensus to assume office as President. He spent the rest of the term fighting monumental battles to carve out his own political identity, and run for office as President on his own steam. His first, tentative steps, involved the dismantling of the structures which kept him at a distance, and the invention of additional political muscle in the form of a Presidential Advisory Committee. His determination to run against his Party’s rotation principle triggered the elevation of regional, ethnic and religious politics to unprecedented levels in Nigeria. With a frame of mind which suggested that his tribe and tongue were political liabilities, President Jonathan’s campaign tapped into a reservoir of sentiment in much of the south and middle belt which saw the ‘north’s’ spirited efforts to stop him as a revalidation of the hegemony with which it supposedly controlled Nigerian politcs. The more he dug in, the more he and his opponents split a nation and a Party which had questionable credentials for uniting a nation through its sheer size, and some principles for power sharing and integration. The quasi-tribal conclave, the N.E.P.F, erected by a few northern elders in the PDP succeeded in stirring deep-seated ethno-religious sentiments around a candidate and a cause which had little bearing to the interests of even the far north. By the time its candidate lost the PDP’s ticket, the impression had been created that the north had lost out, or had been robbed of its right to field a candidate. A PDP affair, and a fight among a disintegrating political elite was popularized in the mind of simple folks as a fight between the north and south, between Islam and Christianity. President Jonathan’s candidature split the nation, split his party, split the north, and split hallowed institutions and value systems which held together our rather weak democratic experiment. The outcome of the elections showed that Nigerians have scurried back into primordial holes, with the Yoruba substantially reinventing the AG, APGA fast reincarnating the NCNC, the CPC looking a bit like the NPC, the ANPP taking up the place of the old BYC and UMBC and NEPU, and the PDP sustaining the politics of survival and strategic alliances of the minorities in the South South.       

          Now President Jonathan will govern with his own fresh mandate, but will deal with the old monsters which have kept the nation captive, as well as others who are appearing in new garbs. Every leader and administration has faced his own challenges, but President Jonathan’s cross is very daunting indeed. On a personal level, he has to prove that he has the strength of character and other leadership qualities to lead with purpose, vision and willingness to take political risks. Nigerians still do not know who exactly President Jonathan is, largely because he has been in the shadow of others for so long; and his stint as President was spent largely fighting series of battles to have his own mandate. He will need to balance the demands of those sections or groups who will see his victory as theirs, against the hostility and indifference of those who campaigned against him and Party. He will have to engage good and honest hands in very delicate statecraft which will limit the damage of the hawks around him that will demand all the spoils of power and their pounds of flesh in retaliation for the embarrassment and humiliations meted out to them and their Party in the north in the post-election riots and violence. He will have to rise above the partisan divide sufficiently to build bridges across and within the sections and groups in the nation, or he will simply feed the simmering opposition against his government in much of the north.    

          The Sheikh Ahmad Lemu Panel will not provide the basis for a comprehensive resolution of the problems which the post-election violence threw up. It may provide some insight into what happened, but a deeper analysis and appreciation of the causes and consequences of the riots needs to be undertaken, so that appropriate steps could be taken to deal with them. Widespread perception, by no means limited to the north, that corruption in government and serially rigged elections have robbed Nigerians of the capacity to develop, has taken root very deeply in the minds of Nigerians, especially the younger generations. The propensity to take up violent political options, initially popularised in the Niger Delta and now taken up by the Yusufiyya movement, by the bombers of Bauchi, Suleja, Kaduna and Maiduguri, by the alarming spread and use of small arms by ordinary citizens; by the rampaging youths who stoned leaders, tore down campaign billboards and fought-off opposition with weapons; and in the manner the entire far north went up in flames within 24 hours following the Presidential elections, represents the biggest challenge for Jonathan’s administration. Northern Governors who were largely on the receiving end of much of the vicious anger and frustrations of their people need to pay close and serious attention to dealing with issues about education, skills acquisition and corruption.     

          President Jonathan will make, or fail to make a mark on history in the manner he identifies his priorities and goals, and chooses those who will help him work towards them. If he is content to run an administration centred around people whose only qualifications and credentials are their contributions to his electoral victory, his campaign slogan of transformation will remain just that. On the other hand, if he digs deep and resists the pressures of the all-powerful Governors and those who see themselves as his godfathers, he will find Nigerians who will share his vision and owe loyalty to him alone, a requirement which will be very useful to him as leader. He must prioritize the fight against corruption, and live transparently above board. The brazen pillage of public funds, much of which funded the recent electoral campaigns is eroding any hope among Nigerians that the Jonathan administration will tackle corruption decisively and effectively.

          President Jonathan needs to work hard to rid himself of the image of exercising his mandate with the votes of southerners. He needs to regain the trust and respect of many people from the north who still feel that he had no business running for the Presidency. He will also need to justify the genuine and popular perception in the South South that one of their own can make a good President. One way he can do this is by honouring his promise to run for only one term. He should state this during his swearing-in ceremony, and he must resist all temptations to reverse this position in future. He should as a matter of urgency, reach out to many people in his Party who may have been alienated by his campaign, as well as many others outside his party who will otherwise continue to work against him.

          President Jonathan should revisit the review of the electoral process as a national priority. The Justice Lawal Uwais report is still there, a veritable source of many solutions to our electoral process. He should also encourage INEC to undertake a deep and honest assessment of the elections it just conducted, and work with the Commission to address problems which obviously arose.

          The period from 2007 to 2011 was largely wasted in terms of effective governance in Nigeria. The next four years can substantially make up for this loss in the manner President Goodluck Jonathan understands his new mandate, and governs the nation. Most Nigerians will hope that he will succeed, because another four years of drift and ineffective governance will spell doom for this nation.   

            

THE AMERICAN WHO AGITATES US

The Nigerian government has admitted that it has denied Mr. John Campbell, a former United States Ambassador to Nigeria and an active commentator on Nigerian affairs, a visa to enter the country. The government says Mr. Campbell has not satisfied the requirements to be issued a visa, but the opposition has dismissed this as a laughable excuse, and demanded that government apologize to the former Ambassador, and admit to its intolerance of criticism. Once again, Mr. Campbell has become the issue in our politics, and in the quarrels which the denial of his visa are generating, we are likely to miss the substance of his comments and predictions. Without a doubt, this quarrel over one American reveals an embarrassingly low point in the manner Nigerians see their own affairs, as well as the full import of the controversies surrounding the quality of the elections which have just produced the people that will lead Nigeria in the next four years.

          Mr. John Campbell had written an article a few days after the Presidential elections in April in which he alleged that the Presidential elections which returned President Jonathan were rigged at the collation stages. He also alluded to the possibility that the post-election violence which followed the Presidential elections will alienate the North from the rest of Nigeria, and therefore hasten a process of weakening the North politically, which is already underway. The comments of Mr. Campbell naturally stirred a lot of interest, as much for his views on the results of the elections, but more significantly, because he also alluded to the possibility that the elections have set in motion a process that will weaken the Nigerian State, and have raised some basic questions regarding the future of the far North, or as he saw it, the Muslim north, in Nigeria of the future.

          Ambassador Campbell had made earlier comments and, postulations regarding Nigeria in the past many of them questionable. He had questioned the capacity of Nigeria to survive as a nation in future, given its geo-political, religious and ethnic composition, and the manner our politicians are turning them into sources of disunity and fragmentation. He had predicted that President Jonathan’s candidature as President in the PDP, the controversies over the zoning formula, the rising popularity of General Buhari in the far North, the weakness of the ruling class and the absence of a wide political consensus around fundamentals of the political process will all pose major problems for the political and electoral process.  He was consistent in warning that the 2011 elections will be a major watershed in determining the future of Nigeria as a developing democracy, whose fragile political structures and an underdeveloped political framework may not withstand major crises.

          There were two immediate reactions to his comments on the uncertain future of the North in Nigeria. One reaction took the form of alarm bells in many academic and political circles in the north. The other reaction triggered a deluge of disparaging and insulting articles and other electronic messages, all heralding or urging the imminent departure of the “almajiri” north from Nigeria. Both reactions were tragically-misplaced. The northern academic and political elite showed its poverty in the manner it seized upon a one-page brief written by an American to galvanize it into action towards understanding the causes and consequences of the political and economic backwardness of the north in the Nigerian context. The Nigerians who saw in Campbell’s brief a welcome prognosis that there could be a Nigeria in future without the North are also celebrating without reason. They showed a pathetic lack of appreciation of the nature of the Nigerian federal system, which needs the north to survive as much as the north needs Nigeria.

          There really was nothing new in the Campbell thesis to get the nation all worked up. Even Mr. President’s best friends will concede the fact that some enquiry into the incredulous results in the South South and South East presidential elections will need to be undertaken, if only to prove that he is not governing with a brazenly-rigged mandate. It is also very clear that INEC and Professor Jega paid scant attention to the full election process, and the gaps in their preparations and attention were fully exploited by those who wanted to rig the elections. To rely on the reports of foreign and external observers, such as Ambassador Campbell, to validate or denounce our elections is a very risky strategy for assessing our efforts towards the development of our democratic processes. Foreign observers are extremely limited in their capacities to assess our entire electoral process, and it amounts to an insult for INEC and those who want to hold up our elections as free and fair to continuously cite their comments as validation. Similarly, people like John Campbell are not without their motives and limitations, many of them against national interests,  and it is equally insulting that much of the criticisms of the elections should be predicated on his extremely limited perspective. Now that the presidential election results are before the courts, all Nigerians will hope that the judicial process will do justice to the genuine need to establish what really happened during the 2011 elections. Until then, comments and opinions of Nigerians will matter, but the courts’ verdict will be the most important.

          The apparent refusal by the Federal Government to grant a visa to former US Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. John Campbell is a reaction which is completely inconsistent with its cause. The Nigerian government has accorded Mr. Campbell a status which he does not deserve. He is an American who sees himself as some sort of expert on Nigeria; and he is entitled to his views, whether government likes them or not. And he will not stop commenting on Nigeria. On the contrary, now his comments are likely to be accorded greater interest by sections of the international community and those Nigerians who prefer to believe what foreigners say about our country, more than what we see, say and experience as Nigerians. To keep out Campbell because he says things about our country or our elections which our government does not like is not standard practice expected of civilized governments. Many Nigerians have said the same things  about our nation. Whether Campbell says them or not, many of our political and electoral problems require serious analyses and solutions. Banning Campbell from coming to Nigeria will not solve them.  

WHO IS ON KADUNA STATE’S LIST?

The Nigerian media is awash with names of prospective appointees as Ministers, Special Advisers and Chairman of Boards of Federal Parastatals which have been forwarded to the PDP National Headquarters and Mr. President. Each State is reported to have submitted 10 names, and so far about 29 States’ lists have been made public. The list from Kaduna is conspicuously missing, but there are many speculations on who will be on it, or what has happened  to it. These speculations are fuelled by rumors of an intense power play going on in the State, and different commentators and interest groups have strong opinions on who should be, or is on the list which is still to see the light of day. The political horse trading in Kaduna State and its possible outcome is likely to signal the location of power and those who would have lost out. For a State which needs unity and a strong government to pull it out of its current difficulties and create an atmosphere for economic development and peaceful coexistence, quarrels over who should be favored with a federal appointment are likely to compound the perception of ineffectiveness and external control over its affairs.

The selection of citizens of a State who may be appointed into key positions at the Federal level is very important. Ordinarily, it should be the joint responsibility of the Governor, the Party and other major stakeholders in the State. It should also done on the basis of competence and the record of the nominees, equity, and a recognition of the pre-eminent position of the Chief Executive. It is also important to consider the potential of the nominees to contribute to governance at the national level, as well as ensuring that the State achieves the maximum benefit from the appointment.

It is no secret that the election of Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa has created a number of power clusters in the State, each with some claims for his victory. Some of the key players and clusters in the State’s politics do not see eye-to-eye, and the process of deciding who to select for federal appointment appears to be the battle ground for supremacy among these clusters and key players. The political terrain in Kaduna State is extremely fluid, but it is safe to assume that the influence of the Vice President Namadi Sambo, the State’s Party Chairman and Alhaji Suleiman Hunkuyi are visible and potent. The former Governor and out-going Senator, Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi may appear to have lost out  after losing his re-election bid, but it will be wrong to dismiss his considerable weight and influence built over the years as a politician. Then there is the massive influence of the Party members from the southern part of the State, the part which stood solidly behind Governor Yakowa. Prominent citizens and many communities from that part of the State would like to see key appointments go to their sons and daughter as just rewards for their support and loyalty.

All these clusters and key players will expect to find expression in the manner nominees are decided upon. In particular, the Governor and the Vice President will have to engage each other in a delicate battle of wits and for the influence of Mr. President in order to both nominate citizens and make sure that they minimize any possible damage to their relationships. Governor Yakowa will also have to balance the need to reward service and loyalty in the campaigns for his re-election against entrenched interests that will pit his two predecessors in office against each other. Whatever happens, some powerful interests will lose out. How that translates into Governor Yakowa’s control and management of Party and State affairs will depend on how much goodwill he gains by who is nominated and appointed, and how much goodwill he loses from those he will alienate if they lose out.

It does not say much about the decision-making process, or the decisiveness of Governor Yakowa that the citizens of Kaduna State are yet to know who has been nominated. If there is a list or lists in Abuja, and the people on them are not being made public, it suggests some deep disagreement among the key decision-makers. If there is no list yet, it suggests that the political problem in the State is very deep indeed. Either way, this is not a good omen for a government which should be firm, decisive and effective.

Governor Patrick Yakowa will be sworn in on 29^th May as Governor with a fresh mandate. The citizens of this State will expect him to govern with a clear vision and the firmness and maturity of a leader of a complex State. All his actions must portray him as his own man, a leader capable of taking decisions in the interest of the entire citizenry, and one who can handle more complex political problems than selecting ten people who may be given Federal appointments. There are many challenges before the Governor and the State, and most citizens will hope that he will find the will and the political skills to overcome these challenges.      

THE SCRAMBLE FOR OFFICES

          When he was commissioning the new Cargo Terminal in Ilorin, Kwara State, President Goodluck Jonathan took a swipe at the current scramble and jockeying  for political appointments. He was reported to have observed that the intense lobbying for political appointment detracts from the need for leaders to see their primary responsibility as one of improving the welfare of the Nigerian people. The President further observed that while economic development benefits the people, political appointments merely benefit the political appointees.

          The comment of the President, made at a time when the nation is witnessing the usual scramble for political appointments following elections, is welcome. It will also raise the hopes of Nigerians that the President will pay very close attention to the need to appoint only Nigerians who will bring the values of selfless service and unquestioning commitment to the public interest into his administration. It is also important to remind the President that the army of political appointees in the form of Special Assistants and Senior Special Assistants and Chairmen and Members of Boards, largely on political considerations, and not on merit which he himself will soon consider, represent an intolerable drain on the nation’s resources.

          As the President and Governors get set to commence the execution of the mandates of the Nigerian electorate, the deluge of demands for appointment of political cronies, jobbers and sundry supporters into plum positions will pose serious challenges to them. Majority of these people lobbying or being lobbied for do not merit appointments into key offices of Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers or Chairman of Boards of Parastatals. Their sole qualification will be their political credentials, or whether they have contested elections, and were rejected by their people at the polls. Yet they will be appointed to take vital decisions and implement major policies and programmes for the Federal and State Governments for the next four years.

          There is an even more disturbing issue regarding the appointment of persons without proven records of competence, qualification, integrity and exposure. This is the practice of appointing thousands of people as Special Advisers and Assistants by State Governors. These people do absolutely nothing but collect huge amounts from public funds at the end of each month in the name of settling political loyalists. Just about everyone can be appointed a Special Assistant or Senior Special Assistant by a State Governor without reference to any other authority, and without regard for the need to protect public funds. Resources which could be productively channeled into educating children of the poor, or improving health facilities for the rural population; or providing employment opportunities for young Nigerians are simply doled out to buy off political pressure and opposition by Governors. The salaries and allowances of 500 Special Assistants alone can build hospitals each month in many rural areas. Yet no Governor has been able to resist the pressure and to  stop appointing them.

          The elections of 2011 have thrown up major political problems for the Federal Government and most State Governments. The best solutions to these problems lie in making sure that governments work for the people with competence, transparent honesty and integrity and discipline. The first challenge for good governance is to set the right priorities, and stick to them. All governments must prioritize the creation of employment opportunities, particularly for the youth. Rehabilitation and development of basic infrastructure must also be prioritized. Investment in human capital, particularly in education and health must also be priorities. All governments must commit themselves afresh to the fight against corruption and waste, and Chief Executives, that is Mr. President and Governors must lead by example. The nation will like to see elected officials declare their assets immediately, and although the law does not demand this, they will be well advised to do so publicly. The protection and preservation of public funds is a very important responsibility of the leadership. The practice of doling out millions every month to political cronies who contribute nothing to governance or development must stop.        

          President Goodluck Jonathan’s government will make, or fail to make, a difference in the manner it chooses those who will make and implement its polices and programmes. Most of the people reported to have been submitted to him for appointment as Ministers or chairmen of Boards do not have the qualities or qualifications to lead this nation out of its current problems and challenges, and into a new era of real development and peace. If he is content to appoint political failures and expired politicians and entrust the nation’s affairs to them, then he should not expect the transformation he is promising Nigerians. On the other hand, he can look deep and hard, and go beyond his political comfort zone to appoint competent and patriotic Nigerians, of whatever coloration to help him achieve a real change in the lives of Nigerians. This is the only way his caution against political jobbers and in favor of real development for Nigerians will make sense.

PDP’s SOMERSAULTS ON ZONING

In the build up to President Jonathan’s candidacy for the Presidential elections, the zoning and rotation principles of the Party came under the most intense and destructive disputes. Although they are enshrined in the Party’s constitution, their status and applicability became widely available for interpretation, depending on which narrow political interest was looking at it. In the end, the triumph of Jonathan as PDP’s candidate, even over a most formidable opponent raised by powerful interests in the north in support of the rotation and zoning principle, effectively put paid to any pretence that the rotation and zoning policy of the Party is still alive. The PDP and President Jonathan paid a heavy price for this seeming violation of a major pillar of governance, and even non-PDP northerners, right up to the elections, have not forgiven Jonathan for insisting on running on the PDP ticket in 2011.

Now, as the PDP prepares to rule for another four years, its zoning policy is under scrutiny once again. This time, however, the PDP wants to retain the old zoning policy irrespective of the massive changes in the political terrain which have occurred in the country. Not unexpectedly, this is raising some serious concerns in many circles, and it appears at this stage that the leadership will once again impose its will, and many sections of the country will try to resist this. The manner this dispute is resolved will tell Nigerians whether the PDP leadership has learnt any lessons from the recent past, or it will continue to govern as it had done in the past, irrespective of regional sensitivities and its need to demonstrate a transparent respect for its own rules.

The quarrels in the PDP over rotation and zoning will have a profound impact on the capacity of the government to achieve effective control of the nation’s competing interests and regions.

The most immediate impression which the quarrels in the PDP over zoning is creating is one which suggests that for the PDP leadership zoning is only relevant and applicable when the leaders say so. The attempt to force down upon the Legislature a leadership which is the making of the Executive and sections of the PDP leadership is in keeping with PDP traditions, and has been criticized over and over again. But the efforts to zone key offices without due considerations for history, tradition and current disposition of the PDP in all the six geo-political zones will be even more actively challenged, and will further undermine the value and efficacy of the zoning policy as an effective tool for integration and governance. It will give credence to the widely-held view that President Jonathan merely wishes to favor specific individuals, such as the President of the Senate, David Mark and former President Olusegun Obasanjo in return of their support for him. Conversely, it would also strengthen the view in some quarters that the leadership places much lower premium on the interests and loyalties of some zones, such as the South-East and the North – East. Finally, the insistence that some zones must have some specific offices, irrespective of their contributions to the current fortunes of the PDP, such as the case being made for zoning the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the South West in spite of the fact that the zone has no PDP Governor or Senator, and has only three Members in the House of Representatives will confirm the suspicion that the zoning principle is merely a source of patronage for the President to dispense on his personal whim.

What will be even more damaging to the PDP is the impression being created that the President is unable or unwilling to chart his own course as the leader, in spite of his fresh mandate. To insist that the old zoning formula must be sustained, even in the face of major shifts in the political ground, is to appear to choose the path of least resistance. The President will please the South South, which is already solidly behind him, and offend the South East, which feels it deserves more than a Deputy Senate President given its weight of votes. He will please the North Central zone which is substantially PDP and loyal anyway, and offend the North –East which believes that despite all odds, it did much better than the position being zoned to it, which is Deputy Speaker. He will please the South West which voted for him, but rejected his Party at all other levels, and further offend the North West which many in his Party feels had no interest in his candidature and political fortunes anyway. In all these calculations, there is nothing new, and even a superficial tinkering with the posts and the zones would have suggested a willingness to operate off the beaten track.

But by far the most serious problem for President Jonathan and the PDP is the impression being created that the values of leadership with honor, and respect for constitutions and laws are secondary to political expediency. President Jonathan and some leaders of the PDP who said the zoning and rotation principles are not sacrosanct will now attempt to force them down on many reluctant sections. Many party members who labored hard to get the President and the PDP will have to answer many awkward questions from Nigerians on why the zoning policy should be applied by President Jonathan today, when he rejected the rotation principle last year for this year’s elections. Many Nigerians will raise major concerns regarding the explicit criteria of religion in addition to geo-political zoning by the PDP, at a time when the nation appears to be paying a heavy price for politicizing religion.

The arguments around rotation and zoning will be won in the end by President Jonathan and his supporters in the leadership positions of the PDP. They will, because they already have the power to have their way. The rest of the Party and the nation will watch as key positions are zoned by the leaders as they wish. Many Nigerians will say that is how the PDP has always done things. But many Nigerians will also lament the loss of historic opportunities for President Jonathan to chart a new course for the nation that will effectively address its current challenges and allow him to govern as a President who has vision and courage to demolish old barriers, and build bridges in their places.

RETREAT INTO PRIMORDIAL HOLES

The April 2011 elections have provided some deep insights into the nature of political relations between major groups and sections of the polity. To move on from the current problems and challenges which the elections exposed, it is vital that Nigerians understand the nature of these relations and their implications for the nation’s survival as a unified and secure political entity. The leadership in particular needs to be sensitive to contemporary dispositions of major groups and sections, and build its strategies for governance around the visible and relevant manifestations of the political outlines of the sections and interests of the nation.

Fifty years into political independence, Nigeria has come full circle, with its politics bearing an uncanny resemblance to the immediate pre-independence era, as well as the period of independence before the military coups of 1966. Broadly speaking, the Western Region, now the South West geo-political zone was firmly in the grip of the Yoruba party, the Action Group. The Eastern Region, now the South East geo-political zone was securely under the control of the N.C.N.C, the Ibo party. The southern minority groups, now the South South geo-political zone lived under the multiple domination of the NCNC, the AG and the might of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) which exploited their weakness to build alliances with them, thus limiting the power of its rivals, the AG and NCNC. Even at that, the people of the South South showed periodic resistance, and demonstrated a desire to break free from the dominance of the major groups and their politics. The Northern Region, now represented by three zones, the North West, North East and the North Central was largely under the dominance of the Northern Peoples Congress, a largely Hausa Fulani-led Party with substantial minority participation. But the NPC also faced serious challenges from the minority groups in the middle belt and the North East, as well as a radical party in the heartland of the old caliphate, the N.E.P.U.

The elections of 2011 appear to have recreated the old order in a nation desperately searching for evidence that its unity is resting on stronger foundations, and that the ruling party’s 12 years in power may have created a framework for integration. Today, the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN is virtually a mirror image of the old Action Group, and it speaks loudly of the retreat of Yoruba people into their old roles of providing political opposition at the center while keeping a firm grip on its region. The complete routing of the PDP in the South West is sufficient testimony to this, while the region’s overwhelming support for a Jonathan Presidency appears to be a reincarnation of the old Western and Northern Region rivalry. The surging force of the All Peoples Grand Alliance (APGA) in the Ibo territories which is threatening to obliterate the PDP is evidence of the Eastern Region’s return to the old NCNC days. The dominance of the PDP in the South South is evidence of the return of the politics of security and survival through alliances with the strong and powerful, a strategy perfected long ago by leaders of the minorities of the South South. In the old North, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) is looking more and more like the old NPC, while the dislocations between the far North and the Middle Belt suggests the reinvention of the old, tenuous relations between them. The dominance of the PDP in northern minority areas and the survival of the ANPP in the North East and some parts of the North reminds the nation of the days of the United Middle Belt Convention, the Borno Youth League and the NEPU as political groupings which gave the old North its heterogeneous and fairly advanced political character.

These are, of course, rather broad categorizations, but they do represent some factual and disturbing evidence that the Nigerian people are retreating into tribal enclaves. This, for a nation which has raised the pursuit of political survival and unity to the highest levels of its priorities, and even had to fight a civil war to preserve them, says much about the failure of political leadership in the past. We need to look for answers to the difficulties and challenges which have resulted in the fragmentation of the political terrain around primordial loyalties. We need to build bridges to these political enclaves which our recent political experiences and conduct have created, but we need strong, enduring political material and leadership to do this. First we need to ask whether Nigerians have lost faith in the Nigerian project, an endeavor which requires considerable trust and faith from citizens, and political maturity and competence from the leadership. Second, we need to scrutinize the quality of the leadership, and establish whether we only have leaders who can wear small shoes, and have therefore broken up the larger shoes left by our great leaders of the past in order to govern us. Third, we need to ask if our federation has a future as it is, or whether we need to re-visit our federal system to reflect contemporary dispositions of the Nigerian people. Forth, we need to ask whether, in the manner the PDP has governed this country in the last 12 years, it has not contributed to the emergence of primordial sentiments and loyalties. If we find the answer in the affirmative, the nation needs to hold the leadership solely responsible for the political crises we face, including the manner we seem to be drifting apart, and demand that it finds answers to these problems through purposeful, effective and all-encompassing governance strategies.

The current political tendencies which have exposed the nation’s structural weaknesses must be addressed boldly and comprehensively. The elections and the post election violence we witnessed are both the cause and the consequence of our weakening political foundations. Thousands of Nigerians are victims of this weakness, even as we speak, and many hundreds have lost their lives as a result. We cannot continue to live like this, with caricatures of each other in our minds, and tribal leaders calling the shots when we should be a stronger, and more united nation. If we are largely where we are today because of the 2011 elections, Nigerians have a legitimate right to fear what will happen before or after the 2015 elections. Those who have ears to hear should do so. Politics has brought Nigeria to its knees. We must not allow it to destroy our nation for ever.                      

CPC GOES TO COURT

On Friday 6^th of May 2011, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) asked the Court of Appeal, which is sitting in Abuja as the Presidential Election Tribunal to compel INEC to undertake some very sensitive tasks which have a direct bearing on the validity and credibility of the elections and which will be crucial to its position that the Presidential elections have been massively rigged. On Monday May 9^th, the CPC will file its petition challenging the validity of the elections, in conformity with the law which stipulates that all election petitions must be filed within 21 days of the poll.

In the ex-parté application filed by CPC’s lawyers on Friday 6^th of May, the CPC indicated its intention to examine the Direct Data Capture machines which INEC used for the registration of voters, and the ballot boxes and ballot papers used by INEC to return President Goodluck Jonathan as winner. The CPC also listed INEC itself and its Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, President Goodluck Jonathan and his Deputy, Namadi Sambo and all the 37 Resident Electoral Commissioners as respondents. The CPC told the Court that it had made unsuccessful efforts earlier to get INEC to release many sensitive electoral documents and equipment to it, hence its recourse the Court to compel the Commission to comply with its request.

It now appears that the CPC will challenge the Presidential elections in all the States of the Federation, and will raise issues around every element of the electoral process, from the registration of voters to the ballot papers and collated results. This will be the most comprehensive challenge to an election, and will involve a very detailed examination of biometric data to establish whether the elections were rigged through multiple voting as well as; an investigation of the entire balloting processes and  the appointment and deployment of all election officials. CPC plans to demonstrate, using the most comprehensive analysis of all voting processes, including forensic examination of ballot papers, that President Goodluck Jonathan did not win the Presidential elections.

General Muhammadu Buhari has kept his promise that he will not personally challenge the elections in court, but there is little difference between him and his party. The CPC’s challenge of the elections are therefore General Buhari’s challenge, and there is nothing wrong with the Party’s exercise of its right to challenge the election. What is significant is that the CPC, whose candidate, General Muhammadu Buhari received more than 12 million votes from Nigerians according to INEC, feels sufficiently aggrieved to challenge the Presidential elections result. In taking this step, the CPC is protecting the rights of all those who voted for the Party to establish to the last detail, and through the exploitation of all the avenues available for judicial redress, whether its candidate lost the elections fairly, or was rigged out. The Party is also strengthening the foundations of the Nigerian democratic system by ensuring that the electoral process is challenged to operate on the basis of the rules of fairness, transparency and credibility. It is also important to note that the Party’s decision to challenge the Presidential elections when its candidate has declined to do so is a welcome evidence of some level of its autonomy from General Buhari, even though its opponents will say that it is one and the same thing.        

When, in December last year, General Muhammad Buhari told a foreign media that he will not seek legal redress from any Court in the land in the event that he loses the elections, many people felt that the decision was the wrong one. Even while appreciating the frustrating experiences of the General in the Courts following the 2003 and 2007 elections, many Nigerians felt that to forfeit a vital step in the electoral process in advance, which was what the decision implied, was to short-change the electorate and the candidate himself. General Buhari’s decision, even before the elections, not to challenge a loss in court also portrayed him in a negative light for a number of reasons. If he, as an individual chooses not to go to Court, his supporters and party members have a right to challenge his loss if they feel it was undeserved. To draw the line at the declaration is to treat his candidature and the mandate of his party members as personal to him. For someone who says he is a democrat, this is wrong. The decision also reinforced the view in many quarters that General Buhari and the CPC are one and the same thing, and the views of millions of its members and supporters did not matter in crucial decisions he and his kitchen cabinet took. There was also the concern that without challenging a declared loss, the Party and the candidate could lose a major opportunity to win a victory at the Courts, no matter how badly Nigerians perceive our judicial process. Finally, many people were worried that General Buhari’s decision not to go to court could be interpreted to mean that his supporters should seek justice in any manner they chose. Some of his detractors have insinuated that some of the violent reactions of his supporters, which he condemned, may have been informed by their understanding that his declared loss was the end of the road for their  hopes that the elections will give them victory.

Now that the CPC has gone to Court to challenge the elections, and intends to do so in a most comprehensive manner, the nation can be assured that the electoral process will be thoroughly scrutinized as it should. The millions of people who voted for the CPC and General Buhari will have an opportunity to establish whether their candidate lost fairly, or was rigged out. All Nigerians will be assured that the April 2011 elections reflect the popular will or not. And our democratic system will be the better for it; while INEC itself may learn some valuable lessons in terms of its performance.

Now that the results of the elections are in the judicial domain, the Nigerian judiciary must rise to the occasion and do justice to the legitimate expectations of Nigerians that it will deal with all election petitions fairly and expeditiously. The nation is still counting the cost of the riots and mass killings which followed the Presidential elections. The general perception of the judiciary in the mind of the Nigerian public is not one it should be proud of. Now we have a very good opportunity to improve that image in the manner election petitions, not just the one involving the CPC’s Presidential candidate, are handled.   

BUILDING BRIDGES WITH THE FAR NORTH

The maneuverings within the PDP for positions and patronage are revealing some interesting trends which will have direct impact on the manner President Goodluck Jonathan intends to deal with various sections of the nation following an election that has thrown up new challenges for governance. There are reports that the PDP is involved in very intense negotiations and spirited jockeying for positions under its zoning principles, with two basic positions seeking to triumph. One position rests its case on the argument that President Jonathan’s victory was achieved without the far north, represented by the North West and North East zones, and therefore the plum positions, available to the PDP and government should not be allocated to the zones. Instead, due cognizance and reward should be accorded zones which substantially voted for him, that is, the South South, the South East, and North Central. The other position makes the case that the allocation of key positions should not be predicated on voting patterns during the Presidential elections done, as this will compound the problem of the President in terms of his ability to govern a nation which has shown palpable evidence of major divisions around his candidature and victory. This position argues that the far North needs to be effectively re-integrated into the political process by the manner in which the leadership rises above partisan divides and opportunistic pressures that will further alienate a vital section of the polity. It also makes the case that the far North actually substantially voted for President Jonathan, and gave him not only aggregate votes, but also the percentages he required to be declared winner by INEC. 

These debates within the PDP are pointers to a more complex issue which is at the heart of the problems which the national leadership needs to deal with in the next few weeks. This is the manner in which it intends to handle its electoral victory, and transform it into an effective tool for governance. The arguments about which zones should receive which positions under the PDP’s zoning principles are only symptoms of a deeper problem. This is the problem of building bridges between and within Nigerian communities in such a manner that the rifts which became obvious and visible after the elections are managed with maturity and very high levels of responsibility. Most Nigerian politicians see politics only in terms of reward and punishment. Winners, who would have invested virtually everything in a contest, take all; and losers not only lose everything, but their supporters are also punished for disloyalty to the victor in the elections. Particularly in the far north, many prominent PDP members and people perceived as their supporters are seething with anger and indignation over the attacks, losses and humiliations they received in the hands of mobs, most of whom appeared to have been supporters of the CPC. Many of these victims in the PDP now want their pound of flesh, not only in insisting that the authors and perpetrators of their indignity must be brought to book, but also in insisting that they receive no political largess in the dispensations which the Jonathan Presidency is in a position to make. In spite of the fact that in most of the States in the North where General Muhammadu Buhari defeated President Jonathan in the Presidential elections, we now have PDP Governors, there are hawks who see the zones in the far North as hostile to President Jonathan. In the political pecking order, they will argue therefore that these zones receive the least in patronage and the dividends of Jonathan’s victory.

In the South-South and the South East, as well as the North Central, there are strong pressures for commensurate rewards for support and loyalty to President Jonathan. These zones will claim to have been responsible for his victory, and will point to the riots and the mayhem which followed his declared victory in parts of the North as evidence of deep hostility to his Presidency, which should not be rewarded. Even the South West, which has no single PDP Governor, will claim that it facilitated the emergence of President Jonathan in the manner it sacrificed its own ACN Presidential candidate, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, so that President Jonathan can beat General Muhammadu Buhari in the South West. It will demand requisite appreciation and reward in the manner key positions in the Party and government will be disbursed.

At the centre of all these pressures, President Jonathan and his colleagues at the helm of affairs of the PDP will have to take some major decisions. They will have to decide how far they will go in acknowledging and rewarding loyalty; and how they intend to treat parts of the nation which voted against the PDP, and then went on rampage when it was declared winner. The setting up of a Panel to investigate the pre-election violence in Akwa Ibom State as well as the civil unrest in some States following the 2011 Presidential Election will hopefully settle the issue of dealing with the perpetrators of the destructions and the killings which followed the elections. But a Panel cannot provide political solutions to political problems, even if it addresses adequately the need to investigate and provide a basis for some action towards justice, law and order. The real work of rebuilding political bridges has to be undertaken by the political leadership. And this is where President Jonathan will decide whether he wants to be remembered as a Statesman or a politician. President Jonathan as a Statesman will resist the temptation to run a government strictly on the basis of votes cast for his victory. He will recognize the imperatives of re-integrating many sections of the country, and assuring the vast majority of the citizens who were, in fact, all victims of the mayhem that followed his election, that as Nigerians, they will form part of his constituency. He will resist the hawks who will argue that the far north will be best dealt with an iron fist, and that the free exercise of the rights of citizens from that part of the country to vote for candidates other than President Jonathan amounts to disloyalty which should be punished. 

The politician in Jonathan may attempt to build his administration around areas and zones which had supported his candidature and which voted for him. He will be tempted to consolidate, and hope to weaken the resistance around regions which voted against him. He may have his eyes on the next election, not on the next generation. He may achieve some immediate, short-term goals among a small clique of political appointees, but he would have lost a historic opportunity to turn the tide against him, and reclaim the lost ground in terms of the unity and survival of a democratic Nigeria. He will rule with the agenda of another political party, because if he treats the far north as a region undeserving of equal and adequate treatment, he will merely strengthen the opposition, and even punish the millions of PDP supporters in the region.

The recent elections, unlike any other in the past, have created massive problems which will require very delicate handling to solve. These are times requiring deep reflections on the genesis and nature of the problems which the elections have thrown up. Even as victors celebrate, they will do well to remember that while they contest for offices on partisan basis, they are elected as leaders of all the people. The areas where President Jonathan needs to accord the highest priority in terms of attention and resources are the very areas which appears to have turned their backs to them. Getting them back on board in terms of governance and securing the future unity of Nigeria may be the greatest challenge for President Jonathan, and the best legacy he could leave behind.     

THE FATE OF NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE CORPS (N.Y.S.C)

The deliberate targeting of young Nigerians serving as National Youth Corps members in the north in the riots which followed the presidential elections is condemnable, but the nation should be wary of reacting in a manner which will amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the very least, the nation should review the events of the past which led to the death of young Nigerians whose only crime was that they answered the clarion call to serve their fatherland, in a sober mood that will do justice to their lives and the value of their service to Nigeria.

          The events which followed the presidential election of the 16^th of April will be permanently registered as symbols of the failure of our nation to manage complex developments which have major bearings on our lives. Within a few hours, many major towns, cities and even villages and hamlets went up in an orgy of mass killings, arson and unspeakable forms of violence, including rape and the burning and destruction of places of worship. Even before the results of the Presidential elections were announced, mobs, made up of mostly young people, went around beating up and burning residences of people identified with the PDP, or seen as sympathetic to it. Within a few hours almost the entire far north was aflame, and hundreds of innocent people, including those serving in the NYSC in Bauchi were killed. In Kaduna State the riots took a deadly and traditional pattern, with Christians and Muslims turning on each other and their places of worship. Hundreds more were killed in this State alone in an orgy of killings, the details of which will shock the nation and the world.   

          The young Nigerians who died in the service of their fatherland died alongside hundreds of other Nigerians whose only crimes were their political views, their faith or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They died in service, and the nation should acknowledge this and treat them as heroes. They were involved in an exercise which is meant to secure the foundations of national unity and the development of democratic values and processes. Those who killed them in cold blood have achieved nothing, and they will be judged by God Almighty for their deeds.

          Since the death of the NYSC members, there have been calls from many quarters for the scrapping of the scheme. In the heat of the conflict, many State Governments made a public issue of the plight of many NYSC members who had not been hurt, in the manner they facilitated their evacuation. This further compounded the sense of loss and apprehension felt by parents and the communities which had young men and women in service in the northern States. It is beyond doubt that the fear and insecurity of these young men and women was politicized beyond the bounds of decency, even while accepting that all governments had a duty to protect citizens. 

          At the moment there are possibly thousands of NYSC members in their home states, having relocated on the instructions of their parents or their State Governors. We are yet to hear of any Governor from the north who has volunteered to transport these Corps members back to his State, and give them guarantees of their safety and security. The longer this situation subsists, the more the service will be damaged, and those advocating for its scrapping would have won the argument.

          The NYSC must not be allowed to be scrapped. Its ideals, in spite of massive political, social and demographic changes since its inception, are still valid. It represents one of the genuine avenues for fostering national unity, and securing from young Nigerians a commitment to serve their fatherland for one year in their lives. It allows young men and women from diverse backgrounds to live and work together in environments and cultures far removed from their own. It provides essentials skills and competence to many parts of the country which they will otherwise lack. It is a tool for creating employment opportunities and inculcating discipline and a sense of sacrifice among our young citizens.

          For these and many more reasons, the NYSC scheme should not be scrapped. Those who make the case for winding up the scheme fail to appreciate the fact that just merely scrapping it will amplify the signals that the nation cannot survive because citizens from some parts are unsafe in other parts. If young citizens cannot server their fatherland in every town and village far away from home and be assured of their safety and security, then other citizens will begin to question whether they should venture out as well. The fact is Nigeria has not degenerated to that level.

          These are very trying times for all leaders in Nigeria; but they are also times when bold steps should be taken to reclaim the grounds we lost. The Federal Government should make it clear that it has no plans to scrap the NYSC. The lives of all Corps members should henceforth be insured, unless they choose otherwise. All State Governors should assume direct responsibility for transporting back all Corps members who relocated from their States, and give them firm assurances and guarantees for their safety and security. Governors who are milking the misfortunes of these young people for political reasons should stop, because they are eroding the foundations of our national unity. If all governments cannot protect the lives and livelihood of a few thousand young men and women in national service, it will be legitimate to ask what the future is for a united Nigeria. But it does not have to reach this level, if steps are taken to save the NYSC.

WINNING THE PEACE IN KADUNA STATE

The sheer magnitude of the problems thrown up by the riots and the mass killings which followed the Presidential elections in Kaduna State will intimidate the bravest and most clear-headed leadership. Yet they have to be confronted and dealt with, because every day they live with us, they compound the difficulties in the search for short and long term solutions. These solutions will not be easy to find, given the complicated nature of the conflict, and in particular, given the fact that a solution in one area is quite likely to trigger a problem in another. This, unfortunately, is the lot of Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa and the Federal Government, who are expected by the millions of citizens of the State and other Nigerians to find solutions to these problems which have very deep roots and very sensitive dimensions. These moments are what leaders exist for: to find the courage and wisdom to lead the search for solutions and lasting peace in times of crises. Every citizen who means well for this country will pray that answers are found quickly to the many problems confronting governance and the citizens of Kaduna State.

          The biggest casualty of the recent elections in Kaduna State is public  security and peace in the State. The biggest challenge is therefore to win them back. In immediate terms, government must focus on reducing current levels of tension, and improving the standards of security of life and property. The State government may need to consider lifting the curfew, or substantially reducing it, if for no other reason, than to test whether there is indeed a security threat which the curfew is meant to eliminate. Security agencies now know flashpoints and other areas which are vulnerable to security breaches and failure; so security personnel could be deployed there. The point is that the curfew compounds the siege mentality among the population and reinforces the fear that there are still major threats to security waiting for the curfew to be lifted, to strike.

          The government also needs to deploy all its resources, and in addition requires massive support from the Federal Government to address the problems of the refugees sheltering in many camps across the State. It is important that as many of them as possible are resettled or assisted to relocate from the refugee camps in the next few days. The continued existence of these camps is both a drain on government resources; as well as evidence that government is unable or incapable of dealing with the symptoms of underlying insecurity in the State. The people in these camps have suffered horrendous losses in lives of loved ones, or possessions. No amount of compassion or resources deployed  to them will be wasted. Government needs to actively engage them, and the many communities into which they may relocate or locate back into, to settle them without delay.

          The issue of detainees from the riots and the mass killings also needs to be addressed with some flexibility and firmness. It is safe to assume that there are hundreds of people, mostly young persons, being detained in police stations and military barracks awaiting trial. The stories of torture and death among these detainees, and the delays in arraigning them or taking other decisions on their fate is likely to gain them sympathies in many quarters. Already the clamor for some sort of general amnesty is gaining ground; and yet the same people demanding for pardon for young people who burnt down houses of people who belong to a particular political party may oppose the same treatment for those responsible for the mass killings in Zonkwa and other parts of the State. This is the danger in allowing narrow public opinion to pre-empt a firm and fair decision from government. Perhaps it might be useful if government considers releasing many of the detainees on bail to responsible citizens pending a decision on their fate. This way, it will limit the damage being done to its determination that people who kill or maim or destroy other people’s property must be made to answer for their actions. In any case, government needs to be sensitive to protecting the rights and privileges of all detainees, including their rights to be protected against torture and illegal detention. 

          There is also the very difficult decision on whether government intends to inquire into the immediate and remote causes of the riots and the mass killings and who did them  or instigated them or participated in them. It will be difficult to see how government can avoid some sort of enquiry into how the riots were triggered, and who is responsible for the killings in Zonkwa, in Kafanchan, in Zaria and Kaduna, in Soba and many other parts of the State. With every new day, communities are likely to retreat into protecting their own in these shameful deeds; and hearts will harden. Yet many people will want to know who targeted their homes for destruction and why; who attacked and killed them in hundreds and why; and how an entire State can be caught up in a frenzy of killings and arson within twenty four hours. The magnitude of the conflict is such that it cannot be swept under the carpet. Yet either an administrative or judicial inquiry is likely to be swamped in the same source of the conflict: distrust and suspicion and a pervasive sense that no justice or fairness can come from the other side, and that the government always has an agenda against a particular community. In the next few days, the State and Federal government need to make public how they intend to handle the issue of finding answers which have been asked by many who lost lives and limbs, by the loss of  hundreds of millions worth of destroyed property; by the thousands of refugees or displaced persons; and by the heightened  levels of distrust and hate in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. Whatever decision the Governments arrive at, it must meet the most minimal standards of acceptability and transparency by all sections.

          In the longer term, Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa must rise above partisanship divides and win the peace for the people of the State. It is obvious that the pattern of voting has reflected the very deep divide between the north and south of the State. He must be a statesman, not a politician, and resist the temptation to satisfy a section of the State which voted for him; or his partymen who worked for his victory. There are many PDP people who want their pound of flesh after a hard-fought battle against an opposition, and many days  in hiding after they were chased out of their burning houses. There will also be many people from the southern part of the State who may want a government that will reward their support and loyalty for Governor Yakowa’s election; and who will make the case that the north does not deserve sympathy or support from the Governor. There are yet others who will be scared away from assisting by the intensity of the bitterness and rancour which is likely to characterize the jockeying for the attention of the government at this time. Whole sections of the State are likely to stay aloof, and thus reinforce the dangerous divide in which citizens presently live.

          Governor Yakowa can win the trust and confidence of the bulk of the citizens if he does not allow the hawks to hijack his government. He should be a strong leader who should reach out to every citizen and community; who should build bridges across communities and heal wounds; who should be compassionate without being weak; and a leader who will be his own man, and not the product of a partisan divide.

          The task of rebuilding the trust, peace and security which the citizens of Kaduna state and the government worked so hard to achieve in the last seven years will be made easier or more difficult by the manner Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa handles his new mandate in the next few days. He has many difficult decisions to make, and in spite of a lot of goodwill from many quarters, they will be his to make. Of all the decisions to make, the most important one which will help him to earn the trust and confidence of most of the citizens of the State is how he deals with the issues which have been thrown up by the post-election violence. To make it more difficult, he has no luxury of time to make some of the most difficult of these decisions. But he has to make them; and in making them, he will be sending a signal to the people of Kaduna State in terms of what type of Governor he is going to be.        

THE WORLD WITHOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN

The US Government says it has killed Osama Bin Laden, and has thrown his body into the sea. Until there is evidence contrary, it has to be believed that this is the end of the life of a man who, perhaps more than any other in the last twenty years, has changed the nature of international politics and security, and whose impact will continue to be felt across the world for a long time. The world after Bin Laden will continue to be structured around his vision, mission and activities, and the international community will benefit immensely from a deeper understanding of the conditions which made it possible for Osama bin Laden to emerge and wield the type of influence he did. 

Osama bin Laden represented different symbols to different parts of the world. For the US and its allies, he represented a deadly threat and a potent challenge to their dominance of the world. He represented a violent alternative of international diplomacy and maintenance of a world structured by massive inequality in power and economic resources. He represented naked use of violence on a large and extensive scale to achieve political ends. He represented an insidious and dangerous threat to the lives of ordinary citizens, to their livelihood, and to their lifestyles. He represented the sacrifices of countless young men and women who were willing to die while killing hundreds or thousands of other people, the vast majority of whom are only guilty of being citizens of countries over which he declared wars. He represented the trigger to the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the tensions and skirmishes in most of Asia and Africa. He represented the unfamiliar face of Islam which defies the West, and defines it categorically and openly as an enemy to be fought as a duty by every Muslim.

In the Muslim world, Osama will represent a major paradox. His religion of Islam defines clearly the conditions for waging war or killing people, particularly those who are innocent. Yet almost the entire Muslim people live in countries that are among the poorest in the world, and are substantially victims of a world in which the western powers did as they wish, and the poor nations suffered as they must. Islam and Muslim nations are dominated by non-Islamic forces, and these forces will not allow a fair and equitable resolution of the middle-east situation, or the removal of corrupt and compliant leadership which oppresses people in the Muslim world. Burdened by poverty and political impotence, Muslims, according to Bin Laden, could only achieve salvation if they fought the Western powers, or, more specifically, the United States. The image of a potential victory was imprinted on the minds of many young Muslims through the spectacular impact of events such as the bombings of the Twin Towers and other violent acts targeted at high profile objects and people.

For the world’s poor, Bin Ladin represented a serious dilemma. His message of the use of terror to achieve political ends satisfied a small minority which felt the pains of the arrogance of the rich and the powerful, and the hopelessness of a life without prospects for change. Yet the bulk of humanity abhors violence, whether it is the violence of the oppressor or the oppressed. The world of the weak and poor also appreciated the futility of taking on a powerful enemy by killing its citizens indiscriminately.

For billions of other people across the world, Osama Bin Ladin represents the reasons why life became less secure; why traveling became a very hazardous and tedious affair; why virtually all governments spend more and more of their resources on improvements in security; and why there is greater distrust between the world’s Muslim and non-Muslim community. For every young Muslim who saw a hero in Osama, there are many more who swallowed the stereotype of Islam as an intolerant religion, a threat to all non-Muslims; and of all Muslims as potential or actual terrorists.

Whatever lessons different parts of the worlds derive from the life and times of Osama Bin Ladin, it will be a great mistake to assume that the world will find lasting peace and security because he is dead. The failure or refusal of the West to fairly and decisively resolve the middle east situation on the basis of justice for the Palestinian people and security for Israel will continue to feed the anger of the world’s Muslims. So long as this issue remains unresolved, the Muslim world will have an uneasy relationship with the West. The poverty in much of the Muslim world, and the existence of corrupt and unrepresentative leadership supported by the West is also a major source of anger and resentment. It must be addressed by supporting the current mass uprisings sweeping across the entire Arab and Muslim world. The West needs  to re-engage the Muslim world as a respected equal in a dialogue on co-existence, and not as a conquered enemy which is both feared and despised. Muslims across the world need to look deeply at the sources of their weaknesses vis-à-vis the non-Muslim world, and identify strategies which will allow Muslims to live in this world without threats to their faith and without having to sacrifice their young people to perpetual conflicts.

Osama Bin Ladin is both loved and despised by many millions of Nigerians. With his death, we should expect to see both sadness among those who  saw in him a symbol of resistance against anti-Islamic forces, as well as joy among who saw him as representing intolerance and terror on a grand scale. Muslims will know that every life will taste of death, and Osama will be judged for his deeds by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala. Non-Muslims will be well advised to work with Muslims to understand why Osama bin Ladin represents hope and inspires many people to give their lives and take those of others, because our nation and the world will be a better and safer place only if we all work to create an environment which encourages mutual respect and a holistic development for every citizen.