A SALLAH LIKE NO OTHER

This year’s Eid-el-fitr, or Sallah, was celebrated by Muslims in Nigeria with severely tampered joy. All Muslims who saw the end of the fasting period of course gave thanks to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala for being part of His community which He enjoined to fast in the month of Ramadan. They also prayed that their acts of worship and sacrifices will be accepted by Him. They all look forward to another 11 months when they will live without the mandatory abstinence from food and pleasures of the flesh; and they pray that they will continue to raise the standards of their piety and devotion, as well as seek even more vigorously, knowledge, peace and the means to give to those who are more in need than they are.

Nothing will deprive a Muslim of the joys of completing the mandatory fasting during Ramadan; but the end of the month is also an occasion for serious reflection on the life of individual Muslims and the entire Muslim community. Those whose business it is to take stock of the place of Muslims in Nigeria and the world would be disturbed by the appearances of worrying tendencies and developments among the Muslim community. The holy month of Ramadan, during which the Quran was sent to all Muslims, is one in which Muslims are required to exhibit the highest standards of conduct and devotion which is required of all Muslims; and to show the highest levels of restraint and discipline at both individual and social levels. The month is supposed to reinforce the natural unity among all Muslims, and strengthen their bonds through acts of worship and submission to the will of Allah.

For Nigerian Muslims, the muted controversies over the sighting of the moon which signalled the beginning and the end of the month of Ramadan are symptoms of a very serious problem which must be tackled. Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala has decreed that Muslims should start and conclude the in the month of Ramadan on sighting the moon; and in His wisdom, He made the process of a simple one, requiring two things. The first is that a reliable Muslim or Muslims must actually sight the moon. The second is that the Muslim community should have a credible leadership which will verify and inform them of the sighting, and advise them to commence or conclude the fast. Although there have always been pockets of disagreements and resistance around the sighting of the moon in Nigeria, the level of dissent and arguments, particularly in the north this year is a major cause for worry. In spite of strenuous efforts made to discourage the Ulama from expressing strong opinions on the manner the Ramadan fasting started, most Muslims were made aware through Tafsir and other avenues that the dissent this year represents a very serious breach which must be addressed. The manner in which major segments of the Muslim community also reacted to the end of the Ramadan compounded the problem, and this year, perhaps more than any other, more Muslims in the north prayed separately than was ever the case in recent memory. The uncomfortable truth is that there is a lot wrong at the highest levels of Nigeria’s Muslim leadership. The clergy and the traditional rulers are part of the problem. Yet these are the very leaders who have to find a solution to the disunity, and the increasing tendency to question the integrity and authority of leaders whose words a few years ago went unchallenged.

The emerging evidence of a weakening leadership for Nigerian Muslims could explain the emergence of fringe sects and groups such as Bako Haram. In the last week of the Ramadan, a group claiming to be acting on behalf of Nigerian and world Muslims bombed the United Nations Office in Abuja, killing more than 20 people. The group said it is fighting for Islam. The leadership of Nigerian Muslims has not advised Muslims on the perspectives to adopt towards that action, on the basis of the correct interpretation of the Quran and Sunna. Perhaps they are afraid; or perhaps they cannot agree on the correct interpretation of this act. Perhaps, as is the worst fears of Nigerian Muslims, there really is no credible leadership for Muslims in Nigeria. Could the sects have divided Muslims so deeply that millions of Muslims would rather follow sect leaders than those leaders who had commanded their respect for many decades on vital issues such as violence, or sighting of the moon? Could the ranks of the traditional rulers have been so severely breached by the erosion of personal integrity and the hallowed position of those who occupy them that even high ranking Emirs will go against the Sultan? Could fringe groups and sects have detected the serious weaknesses at the leadership level to decide to chart their own course? Or has partisan politics eaten so deeply into the ranks of the religious and traditional elite, such that it will be difficult for these leaders to find a solution to the problems of Nigerian Muslims?

There are many disturbing trends and developments in the manner Nigerian Muslims relate to each other, and with their leaders. These trends are responsible for the weaknesses and the reasons why many people lost their lives in Jos on the Monday Sallah day. They are responsible for the tension that arose over a fire at Kafanchan market on the night before Sallah. They are the reasons why millions of Muslims prayed under barrels of guns and boots of security personnel who were deployed in the rain to keep them safe while they prayed at Eid grounds in many towns and cities. They are the reasons why Muslims in the same town prayed on two different days; and why subsequent Eids may take the same pattern unless measures are taken to address their causes.

At the international level, the fortunes of Muslims in a world growing weary and worried over them are not getting better. Many Arab Muslims have thrown off dictators, but it is uncertain whether the Western powers who helped them in this endeavour will not gain firmer control over their lives. The war in Afghanistan, and killings in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, all with strong religious undertones are still claiming many lives. Entire regimes are tenuously clinging to power, and the next few months will show whether the West will prop up some of them, while they let others sink. The fate of Islam and Muslims the world over is strategically linked with the many battles and skirmishes in which it is involved with its leaders, and the disposition of the West. What is certain is that the Western world wants to see a Muslim world which poses less threat to it, but is not willing to address irritants such as the fate of Palestinians, or its support for corrupt dictators.

Nigerian Muslims have many problems. Some of these are problems they have with a Nigerian State which many think has little respect for their basic rights and privileges. These problems can be solved, but they require, first, a committed and courageous leadership which transcends sect and political divides. If Nigerian Muslims cannot unite behind a strong and committed leadership, they will be vulnerable to stronger divisive tendencies. A divided Muslim Umma is a threat to itself; and a threat to Nigeria and the world. Those upon those shoulders the task of leading the Nigerian Muslim community rest should own up to the fact that there is a very serious problem, and although they are part of it, they must work to solve it.

NIGERIA HAS NO ANNA HAZARE

In far away India, a simple, 74 year old man got tired of the manner corruption is destroying his country, and the appearance that the legislature and leadership of his country would never do anything about it, and he decided to act. Being an old man, and not a politician, he could have cursed the leaders who have abandoned the vision of the founding fathers of India, and perhaps his curse would have affected the political fortunes of a few politicians. He could have rallied a few old people like him to picket parliament, but they many have been chased away or beaten up by the police. He could have called a press conference to denounce the leaders of his country, and remind them of the legacies of Ghandi, Nehru and the many other great Indians who built a solid foundation of service and sacrifice; but chances are the press would have scoffed at a 74 years old man with no political coustituency.

This elderly Indian, a former lowly soldier, not a General with a position in a big political party, not a former Minister or Speaker, not a former President with a grievance, decided to take on the might of the Indian establishment by announcing that he will embark on fasting until radical changes are made by the Indian Parliament on areas that are central to transparency in government business, accountability by leaders and the fight against corruption. In most parts of the world, this elderly man would have been dismissed as a crank or media curiosity for a few days, and promptly forgotten. Even in India, his campaign was not the first against spreading corruption or insensitive leaderships.

But Anna Hazare was a wise old man. He knows that hundreds of millions of Indians, like him are fed up with official corruption in India and the increasing failure of the government to push through key reforms which will empower ordinary citizens. He knew that if he operated within the value system and the modus operandi of past leaders like his hero Ghandi, and led a campaign of non-violence and self-sacrifice towards major goals for social good, he will light a fire that will be difficult to extinguish.

Old man Anna Hazare has been spectacularly correct. His many days of fasting galvanized a whole nation, and focussed the world’s attention around an old man in simple clothing with $l,500 in his bank account whose fight was immediately taken up by millions of Indians in groups, and in their individual capacities. The people’s anger and frustration were expressed in demonstrations, debate and demands that key changes in the constitution be made. The Indian Parliament last week bowed to the sheer weight of the people’s voices which took up an old man’s resolve not to die before doing something important for his fatherland. Then old man Anna Hazare broke his fast, but only temporarily. He says he has other demands for reforms around elections and education that must be made. For instance, he says the Indian electoral system should be reformed in such a way that voters should have powers, among others, to recall representatives who have failed to honour their commitments. Voters should also have powers to reject all the listed candidates if none of them deserve their votes. If majority of the voters reject all the candidates, the elections will be cancelled. This way, candidates will be careful how much money they spend before they go to ballot, in case the voters find them unfit to represent or lead them.

The dust raised by a lone old man in India, which has now created a major momentum for change is a sad reminder of the crushing poverty of leaders and other people with a conscience in Nigeria. An old man, without political platform or party affiliation, but only the purity of his conviction and the strength of his cause, has been able to affect Indian legislators across the partisan and Federal divide, the way no Nigerian politician will do today. A simple citizen who has faith in the power of principles and the right of the people to demand changes, has triggered major reforms because he was willing to go through personal pain and deprivation. No Nigerian politician will do that for Nigerians. A 74 year old man who is willing to go to jail and even to die so that young Indians will live in a better nation has exposed the shallow opportunism and lack of vision of Nigerian leaders, who use young Nigerians to campaign, and often get killed in the process. If old man Hazare were Nigerian, he will move in with the refugees at the Hajj Camp in Kaduna and suffer and starve with them until they have permanent roofs and secure and lives. If Hazare were a Nigerian, he will embark on hunger strike or other strategies to draw attention to the need to revisit the issue of electoral reforms in Nigeria, before the next elections destroy the nation completely. If Hazare were Nigerian, he would sacrifice his life to build bridges between the Nigerian State and the people who are engaged in violent campaigns under the name of Boko Haram, or those hiding behind their grievances to wreck havoc on our lives. No Nigeria politician, in or out of power, will do this.

Anna Hazare has demonstrated that every citizen can make a difference in his community and his nation, no matter his standing. He has proved that there is room in all our lives for personal courage and conviction. He has shown by his ability to tap into the popular sentiments among fellow citizens and give them hope that together they can make more impact than all politicians put together. Our politicians and leaders will do well to pay close attention to the fire lit by old man Anna Hazare, because it is showing our own citizens that their salvation may not lie solely on reliance upon the promises of our leaders.

REMEMBERING VICTIMS OF APRIL VIOLENCE

Just about three months ago, the far north of this country experienced one of the worst outbreaks of violence in our nation’s history. The violence was triggered by what appeared to be grievances over the outcome of the Presidential elections, but from all indications, they have very deep roots in long-standing social and economic grievances, which had taken political dimensions in the run-up to the elections. The violence in most parts of the north took on partisan patterns, with leaders and members of the ruling PDP being attacked. Prominent PDP members, traditional rulers and other members of the political elite with some relationship with the Party were attached; their residences destroyed, and government offices razed. For two days, gangs made up mostly of young people roamed the streets and took on security agents, who responded with batons and bullets.

          Much of the violence died down in most parts of the north in a day or two, except Kaduna State, where it spread to most parts of the State, and took a most destructive dimension, feeding on existing fault lines of religion and ethnicity. In three days, the orgy of mass killings had taken the lives of hundreds of people, majority of them villagers in their homes, or innocent travellers who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the wrong mobs. For four days, people were slaughtered with little resistance. Whole communities were sacked. In some instances, entire male members of communities were killed. Within one week, refugees flooded Kaduna, Zaria, Saminaka and other towns. Soldiers took over, as the entire State was placed under a curfew. Elsewhere, many other States also received large numbers of victims of the violence as refugees.

          Three months after that mindless violence, its victims are all around us. They are visible in the thousands of women and children, and a few men who are living very difficult lives in refugee camps. There are reminders in demolished and burnt-out buildings; in entire communities sacked; and burnt churches and mosques; in bitterness and anger; and in numerous check points and daily rumours of impending attacks and reprisals; massive disputes around the Panels set up to establish what happened and their causes.

          The most visible and pathetic reminder of the April violence is the thousands of refugees in camps in Kaduna. These people, who a few months ago were mostly villagers earning an honest living, or other hardworking citizens, have lost everything but their lives. Their children have been subjected to terrible experiences, and most of them will be psychologically scarred for life. The young have had their education interrupted, and their parents have no hope of securing a stable and secure environment to give them another start in life.

          There are reports of plans by the Government of Kaduna State to relocate the refugees at the Muslim Hajj Camp at Mando to the Rehabilitation Centre at Kakuri. These plans, to the extent that they have any credibility at all, need to be carefully thought out. There are many problems which will have to be dealt with if the refugees will move to Kakuri. First, it will require considerable sums to put the place into the condition required to receive and cater for this large number of refugees. Shouldn’t those funds be better utilised in finding a permanent solution to the refugees? Secondly, the move will reinforce the worry that these unfortunate citizens are going to be refugees for a long time to come. All that will change will be their location, and not their status. Thirdly, it will send a signal that the Government of Kaduna state has not thought through an effective strategy of resettling these refugees, either in their former communities, or where they feel safe and secure. There should be no argument over the fact that the responsibility of managing the refugee problem in Kaduna in a humane and effective manner belongs to the government. Wealthy Muslims, NGOs, and CSOs have helped, and should continue to help these victims, but these are not, and should not be substitutes for what the government should do.

          Under the circumstances, the refugee camps in Kaduna State serve as disturbing reminders of a sad past, and hint at some laxity and insensitivity on the part of the government towards the victims. The misfortune of fellow citizens who have suffered should not be compounded by decisions of the government which will merely relocate the problem; not solve it.

OKONJO-IWEALA’S CAVEAT

The new Minister of Finance, and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala says Nigerians should not expect her to perform a magical feat in fixing the Nigerian economy. The lady who is being given a second chance to manage the Nigerian economy says it will take some time to transform the economy, and it will not be done by her alone. She specifically raises an alarm around the high domestic debt, and advises that the administration must be more prudent and disciplined. She reeled out a whole set of related challenges such as macroeconomic reforms and stability, the basic structure of the Nigerian economy; improvements in the management of the public sector of the economy; fighting corruption and the attraction of foreign investment in key sectors as areas which should receive priority attention from the administration. These sound very much like the challenges she set out to meet during her first outing; so Nigerians will wonder what good remains of that stint of hers from 2003 to 2006.  

          Dr. Okonjo-Iweala could be said to be familiar with the Nigerian economy, but even she will be shocked by its current state since she was removed from her powerful position as Minister of Finance and re-assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. She resigned from that position within a few weeks, and returned to her job at the World Bank. Much has happened since those days between 2003 and 2006 when she led a virtual first-tier cabinet which had people like Nasir el-Rufai, Oby Ezekwesili, Bode Agusto, Mansur Mukhtar and Bright Okogwu among other imports and technocrats to negotiate a solution to Nigeria’s intimidating and debilitating foreign debt, and set in motion a whole battery of reforms in the management of the public sector of the economy. The world took notice of what appeared to be a spectacular success of the team in virtually wiping out our foreign debt, but many Nigerians also questioned its cost. Former debt owners gave back token amounts for routine intervention in selected sectors of the Nigerian economy, and Nigerians were told that there will now be more money to invest in capital projects, and the future of our children was no longer mortgaged. Reforms around the budgeting process, government procurement policies and the public service were also instituted, many with the potential to genuinely affect the quality of management of Nigeria’s huge resources.

          Perhaps Obasanjo felt that Okonjo-Iweala had served her purpose of gaining the confidence of the international community in the state and future of the Nigerian economy when he re-assigned her and appointed her deputy, Mrs. Nenadi Usman, as substantive Minister, but she was most disappointed by her removal. In the five years since she left, the Nigerian economy had earned a lot more revenue than it did during her time; but a weak leadership, run-away corruption and scandalous ineptitude in the management of the Nigerian economy have made the nation a lot worse off. Our social and economic infrastructure has deteriorated, and decay around key institutions of governance has become more pronounced. The nation literally stood still while we argued over who should lead the nation; and then conducted one of the most expensive elections per capita in the world. Hundreds of billions of Naira were thrown into electoral competitions, most of it from public funds. Then many parts of the nation went up in flames and hundreds of citizens were killed and maimed as a result of the elections. The administration that emerged from the ashes of those fires and the blood of mostly innocent citizens is still basically shell-shocked; and far from the bold and imaginative moves which Nigerians expect from President Jonathan, the nation is being fed with names and blueprints daily. It is no secret that our foreign reserves are severely depleted. The only areas still attracting foreign investment is the oil sector and telecommunications. Recurrent expenditure is still well above 70% of the budget, and economic infrastructure is in dire need of additional, quality investment.

          Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala must have taken her time to wonder whether she is being re-engaged as a public relations stunt by the President Jonathan administration to gain some credibility and faith from Nigerians and some sections of the international community which believes World Bank executives are better than other Nigerians in managing our economy. It is also reasonable to assume that she took a peep at the current state of the Nigerian economy, and has convinced herself that she can make a major contribution and a difference. We must also assume that during her protracted negotiations with President Jonathan, she must have demanded, and secured a guarantee that she will have wide powers and a free hand to operate. President Jonathan says she will not be paid a jumbo salary in dollars to serve her country; and Nigerians have to believe him.     

          So Okonjo-Iweala’s caveat that she has no magic wand to wave towards fixing the Nigerian economy will not impress many Nigerians. On the contrary, it will raise the levels of concern and suspicion of many that the Nigerian economy is in a much worse state than it is being portrayed by the administration. The super-Minister needs to understand that much store was placed by the Administration in the manner she was cultivated and appointed. A President who was largely the handiwork of another former President who removed her form the Ministry of Finance does not risk political capital to reappoint someone who will not work like a magician. If Nigerians have an exaggerated expectation of the role of Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, the blame is to be found in the manner the administration puts out the impression that she alone will make a huge difference. She should look around and see the quality and calibre of her colleagues in the Economic Management Team and the Federal Executive Council; and she will realise that the task of transformation will be that much more difficult with most of them as team-mates. She herself has fuelled the impression of being a superwoman by accepting to come back and fix an economy which she attempted to fix many years ago, and to have been selected to do this out of millions of other Nigerians.

          The challenge before President Jonathan is to kick-start the Nigerian economy into genuine and positive transformation; and energise the political process by addressing major issues of governance, such as the growing distance between the citizen and the State, and between groups and sections of the country. At this stage flashing names and blueprints will not do; and it certainly does little good for an administration when those who are to fix the economy begin by making excuses. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala has accepted to come and do a very difficult job. She must have convinced herself that she can do it. She should get down to business, and let Nigerians judge whether she was the right choice for the job.    

A DESERVED END FOR GADDAFI

It now appears certain that Muammar Gaddafi has been defeated by a combined force of his own people and the bombs of Europeans operating under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. He may, or may not be captured alive by rebels who have broken into his residence, and are in control of most of Tripoli. In the next day or two, it will be all over for a man who has ruled Libya with an iron fist for over 40 years, and who believed, to the last moment, that he will survive the resistance of his own people and their demands that he step down. The fire that was lit in Tunisia last year by an unemployed man in protest over his economic travails has now burned right across the Maghreb and the Arab world. Gaddafi is its latest casualty, but it is by no means certain that Syria, Jordan, Yemen and other monarchies such as Saudi Arabia are going to be safe from its far-reaching impact.

          The end of the road for Gaddafi was predicted by many who followed his career as a long-term dictator, and his psychological disposition which gave him the impression of being a life-time leader of Libya and, eventually, all of Africa. While Ben Ali fled Tunisia just a few days into his people’s uprising; and Mubarak succumbed after a few months of spirited resistance, Gaddafi dug in. It was clear from his response to the initial demand of the Libyan people that he step aside that Gaddafi was going to resist to the end. His strategy of throwing his considerable military might against unarmed citizens who rebelled against him, and the elaborate attempt to split his people along ethnic and regional lines delayed his ouster, and cost many more lives and damage to his nation than would have been the case if he had accepted that the will of a people can be resisted, but not defeated.

          Gaddafi’s end is a most ignominious one for a man who could have gone down in history as leading the transformation of a backward, but potentially rich North African nation into prosperity and sustained development. He started very well, earning the Libyan people’s admiration and respect for investing in massive social and economic infrastructure, and periodically provoking the West and the US over the weaknesses of Africa as a consequence of their dominance. His maverick character offended many, and earned him many friends. Often, he switched both in one fell swoop. He led the Libyan people into many confrontations with neighbours and the West, and when he and his officials were accused of shooting down an American passenger aircraft, the West fought him with awesome arsenals. He survived with his life and his position, but the citizens of Libya suffered a long period of isolation and deprivation. He used the period of his isolation to build up a military arsenal of his own, which reportedly included weapons of mass destruction, at great cost to the welfare and progress of citizens of Libya.            

          Then the maverick in Gaddafi decided to befriend the old enemy, the West, once more and he did this in a dramatic manner, by destroying his considerable military arsenal in public, and paying over $2b in compensation for the shooting down of the US plane. He then went on a campaign to woo the West further, which was not a difficult task, given the fact that he had considerable oil resources to continue to offer. He turned his attention south to Africa, and intensified his campaign for a continental government under his leadership. Gaddafi was sitting smugly under the false impression that the West now liked him; Africa will succumb to the aggressive pursuit of his ambition oiled by huge handouts to select African leaders; and his people will love and follow him forever.

          Then the wind of change blowing across the Mediterranean and Arab countries reached Libya. Gaddafi never for one moment believed he will lose a war against his own people, and he dismissed the initial demands from some citizens in Libya and an influential group of Libyans in exile that he step down, as the antics of a small group of traitors. He badly misjudged the mood of the Libyan people, and the opportunism of the West which now saw a chance to redeem its record of supporting dictators by siding with the people in North Africa. Western nations pushed through a resolution in the UN ostensibly to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces, but the world knew it was the signal for an all-out assault to remove Gaddafi from Libya. NATO forces, led by France and Britain pounded Gaddafi’s forces, provided critical intelligence to Libyans fighting him, and crippled his troops substantially from fighting back. A rag-tag army with strong support from the air succeeded in pushing Gaddafi’s forces to Tripoli and defeat, and it is likely that Gaddafi may pay the supreme price for his folly, and may take his children with him.

          Now that Gaddafi is out of the picture, Libyans will have to meet many new challenges. The most important challenge is to secure the military victory, and convert it into a political asset that will hold Libya together and create some semblance of a government. Then the task of building civil institutions and the elementary structures of a democratic system will have to commence. Disarming the population and building bridges between those who fought against and those who supported Gaddafi will also require a strong authority and very delicate handling.

          Then there will also be the issue of the pay back to the West to be considered. The Western allies in NATO who sent planes to bomb Gaddafi and Libyans who fought for him are already falling over themselves to recognise and strengthen the National Transition Council, the leadership which is likely to claim legitimacy as a government in post-Gaddafi Libya. Libya’s huge oil revenues and the prospects of huge contracts in rebuilding Libya and in other long-term projects will now be cornered by France and Britain. They will demand that Libyans show appropriate appreciation in economic terms; and they will be actively involved in shaping Libya’s future political directions. Some Libyans will resent the incursion of Western Europe into their lives, and many will be reminded of the re-appearance of the Crusades in Europe against Islam some centuries ago.

          Gaddafi’s folly has opened an opportunity for Europe and the US to take a major stranglehold in the affairs of Africa. It has also further weakened Africa, which watched as European countries, which turned a blind eye on the excesses and abuses of leaders like Gaddafi for decades, now turn to support their ouster, because their own people had had enough. Nigeria’s early recognition of the Libyan rebels will have very little diplomatic effect, because it should have come during the struggle to remove Gaddafi, not after. Other African countries’ hesitation in recognising the new leaders will also further weaken Nigeria’s position, and portray Africa as weak, divided and ineffective. If we could not identify a just cause until a victor emerged in Libya, Libyans will dismiss Africa’s response as belated, opportunistic and secondary to that of Europe and the US.

The success in removing Gaddafi is the victory of the Libyan people. But they have many more challenges in transforming a military victory into a political one. There will be new threats to their unity, security and survival as a nation. They will have to find a way to deal with so-called allies who will now present economic and political bills for settlement. They will have to build a new, democratic Libya. This is not going to be easy, but the manner they have struggled to free Libya of Gaddafi suggests that they can succeed. If Nigeria and the rest of Africa could not or would not help them during that struggle, they should now stand with them, and assist them to rebuild their nation on the basis of the interests of Libyans, not NATO countries. 

NIGERIAN JUDICIARY IN THE GUTTER

The shameful saga involving the most senior members of the nation’s judiciary which Nigerians had watched with shock and disgust in the last few months is taking a turn for the worse, with the appointment of an acting President for the Court of Appeal to replace the embattled suspended President, Justice Isa Salami. President Goodluck Jonathan has accepted the decision of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to suspend Justice Isa Ayo Salami over his refusal to apologise to the Chief Justice of the Federation Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu and the NJC. President Jonathan therefore appears to have gone against the advice of the Nigeria Bar Association not to act on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council and suspend Justice Salami. Beyond endorsing the suspension of Justice Salami, however, President Jonathan said he will await the exhaustion of all on-going litigations in the matter before forwarding the recommendations for the retirement of Justice Salami to the National Assembly, which is the only organ with constitutional powers to remove Justice Salami by impeaching him. In the meantime, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has resolved to boycott activities of the National Judicial Council, starting with the forthcoming swearing-in Ceremony of Senior Advocates of Nigeria scheduled for Friday 26^th of August. The NBA has directed even recipients to boycott the event, or risk being sanctioned.

          This sad development in a long saga which has drained the Nigerian Judiciary of its vestiges of respectability and integrity will not be the last the nation will hear from the judiciary. There are already voices against the action of President Jonathan’s acceptance of the NJC’s recommendation, predicated on the argument that he has no powers to suspend Justice Salami. Justice Salami himself is likely to challenge his suspension, as he has challenged all actions of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the NJC in court. The Nigerian Bar Association has pitched its tent against the NJC, and is likely to raise the tempo of its resistance against the manner it has handled the case against Justice Salami. Opposition political parties are raising their voices in their insistence that the entire saga is political, and is meant to tilt the balance of advantage in electoral litigations in favour of the ruling PDP.

          Beyond any shred of doubt, the odious quarrel which has exposed the embarrassingly shallow levels of personal and professional qualities of the leaders of Nigeria’s judiciary will compound the alarming concerns over the absence of credible leadership in our nation. A bad personal relationship between the Chief Justice of the Federation and the President of the Court of Appeal was brought into play in a most sensitive case involving the election of the Governor of Sokoto State. Severely indicting comments and insinuations were made, all of them by Justice Salami and his supporters to the effect that the Chief Justice had attempted to intervene and subvert the course of justice at the very point when judgement was about to be delivered. Aggrieved parties took up the strong positions, and the media was awash with stories of behind-the-scene manoeuvres to impose a particular verdict by the CJN, and the reported resistance by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Salami against the attempt.

          In the midst of a raging controversy around the integrity of two heads of the highest courts, the Chief Justice of Nigeria attempted to remove Justice Salami as President of the Court of Appeal, and move him up as Justice of the Supreme Court. Again this was seen in many circles as an attempt to eliminate Justice Salami’s influence in the lower court, and install a more compliant President by the CJN. Justice Salami declined the offer, and when it was going to be forced on him, he went to court to stop it. Numerous mediation efforts were then set in motion, all to broker some sort of resolution between the two eminent jurists. They all failed. Worse, they also polarised the judiciary and the legal community along dangerous lines. When it became clear that informal efforts were unlikely to resolve the problem, the NJC got involved. Its conclusion was that Justice Salami had slandered the Chief Justice of the Federation, who had done nothing wrong or inappropriate in his conduct during the Sokoto State Gubernatorial election trial. The NJC demanded that Justice Salami apologise to the CJN and to it. He refused, and took the NJC, the CJN and those related to the matter to court to stop them from proceeding to discipline him. The NJC then recommended his suspension and subsequent retirement to the President.

          The uproar which has followed this latest twist to this shameful saga is evidence that it will assume an even larger dimension. Those who believe that the President acted illegally, because the entire matter is before the courts will make much out of the action of President Jonathan. The political dimension will be emphasized, and the politicisation of the judiciary will get worse. The nation’s confidence in the judiciary will be further dented. The rule of law, the foundation of the democratic system will be a major casualty in a situation where the Bench and the Bar are at each others’ throat, and where the suspicion of high level corruption is all over this scandalous series of events.

          The Nigerian judiciary is in the gutter, and none of the key players is looking up at the stars. Fundamental issues around the conduct and outcome of the April 2011 elections which the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court should adjudicate are now at the risk of being compromised. With the questionable involvement of the executive arm into this disastrous development, the leadership credibility in Nigeria will be even more pronounced. A Chief Justice of Nigeria who will retire in a few weeks time and a President whose election is being strongly challenged are casting shadows over the integrity of the electoral process. Nigerians have one more reason to worry over the state of our national affairs.  

MUSLIMS’ LONG LIST OF GRIEVANCES

On Saturday 14^th August 2011, a Kaduna-based organisation called the Movement for Islamic Culture and Awareness, M.I.C.A, organised its annual Ramadan Lecture around the themes of Peace and Security in Nigeria. MICA is an association of professional and serious-minded Muslims with a broad appeal and deep roots in the community of Muslim leaders, thinkers and preachers. It is active as an NGO and has been involved in numerous activities around elections and strengthening of Nigeria’s democratic foundations. Its speakers during this year’s Ramadan lecture were persons of very high and credible reputation. The selection of the broad themes of peace and security showed that the organisation is sensitive to contemporary issues and concerns in Nigeria. The Ramadan lecture was well attended by a very broad representation of Muslims in and around Kaduna, but most notably by many young Muslims who have been locally prominent as consistently vocal in advocacy around the interests to Nigerian Muslims.

          The MICA Ramadan lecture provided an opportunity for speakers and a very large audience to raise many issues which are central to the way Muslims perceive their position in Nigeria. The speakers for the most part were constructive in their comments, but there was also anger and frustration against a Nigerian State which is seen as deliberately denying Muslims the right to live as good Muslims. The theme of peace and security provided a platform for establishing linkages between peace and justice. In simple terms, all speakers and contributors made the case that without justice for all citizens and groups, peace cannot be secured or guaranteed. Justice in this instance involves balancing the basic needs of all groups on issues which are central to their existence, and addressing, fairly and firmly, those issues which threaten inter-group relations in such a way that none feels that they have been unfairly treated. For a multi-religious nation such as Nigeria, this is a very difficult but absolutely essential task for the State to do, and it can never do it to the total satisfaction of all the groups. This is why it is vital that all governments, security agencies, religious and traditional rulers should pay attention to events such as those organised by MICA, because they represent genuine yardsticks for assessing the nature of inter-faith relations, and the role of the Nigerian State in this regard. This is why it was most unfortunate that the Kaduna State Government was not represented at the event, because it would have given it a valuable insight into the state of mind of many of its citizens. It would also have taken away some strong views on the refugees at the Hajj Camp and the limitations on the operations of commercial motorcyclists in Kaduna metropolis.  

          The recent controversy around the licensing and operations of Jaiz Bank, a financial institution which plans to operate on the basis of Islamic banking principles appears to have triggered a huge reservoir of anger and frustration among many Muslims whose long list of grievances suggest that they have since given up on the hope that the Nigerian State will treat Muslims fairly. The Jaiz Bank issue reminds all Nigerians about the tragic consequences of the controversies around the application of Sharia law in criminal matters. Nigerian Muslims are being reminded that in spite of their vehement opposition, the Arabic characters which specify denomination of our currencies in Hausa language were removed after decades of useful service, by an insensitive leadership and other non-Muslims resent the appearance of Arabic characters on our currency. Muslims are being reminded that their female children are being forced to wear uniforms which offend their faith in many schools, and governments are refusing to intervene on the grounds that they are private schools. Muslims are being reminded that they are forced to observe Jewish and Christian Sabbath on Saturdays and Sundays, but they cannot have Fridays off. Muslims are being reminded that governments now spend hundreds of millions of Naira of public funds to send Christians on pilgrimage, whereas it is of no significance to their faith, unlike Muslims who have to perform the ritual as an integral part of their faith. Muslims are being told that they are under-represented in key institutions of the State that have direct responsibility for security of life and property. Muslims are being reminded that the anti-terrorism legislation, the child rights act and other legislations are targeted at them and their Muslim culture, in spite of spirited opposition by their representatives in and out of the legislature. Muslims are being reminded that they represent the numerical majority in Nigeria, but cannot ask for any concession from the Nigerian State or non-Muslims without serious threats to national security. Muslims are being reminded that they have to live on non-Muslim terms in a country where they constitute the majority population, and which operates fundamentally on values, institutions and laws that are Christian or Western.

There were many more grievances raised during the lecture by MICA. Some of them, however, were grievances which Muslims have against their leaders. Muslims complain over the lack of courage and commitment among current Muslim leaders, and are constantly reminded of the exacting standards set by the late Ahmadu Bello who insisted that Muslims and non-Muslims can only live in peace if they recognized their differences, respected them, and lived with them. Muslims complain over the dangerous incursion of politics into their religion by Muslim politicians and non-Muslim allies, and more specifically, the exploitation of existing sectarian differences among Muslims and their manipulation to achieve electoral victories which was most visible during the 2011 general elections. Muslims complain over rampant corruption among elected leaders, including Muslim leaders, which rob young people of opportunities to grow up as responsible and productive adults; and which forces entire communities to live only on the margins of existence and periodic handouts from politicians. Muslims complain over the involvement of Muslim traditional rulers in politics; over the intimate involvement of religious leaders in partisan politics; and over the involvement of security agents in fuelling the existing negative sentiments against Muslims. Muslims complain over the characterization of all Muslims as Boko Haram, or as terrorists waiting to blow up the world.  

On the whole, the world of the Nigerian muslim is in serious turmoil. The absence of a credible leadership which should aggregate and channel the long list of grievances of Nigerian Muslims appears to be the biggest problem. There are many leaders, but they lead many disparate groups. Government pays token lip service to issues of faith, and beyond the cultivation of the support of a few clergy and the annual distribution of a few Hajj seats, it keeps its distance from issues which affect the perception of Muslims in Nigeria. Government-funded organisations which bring Muslims and non-Muslim leaders together are mere talk shops, and no one takes them seriously.

Nigerian Muslims do not have, and should not have problems with Nigerian Christians. There is enough room for both to co-exist in peace. The problem is one of incompetent and insensitive leadership which fails to deal with issues with the potential to poison interfaith relations. The manner the Federal Government is treating the raging controversy over the Jaiz Bank issue is one example of this insensitivity. Muslims are not the only group with grievances against the Nigerian State, and they must recognise the reality that they cannot ask for themselves what they will deny others. It is time for government to take a very serious look at new strategies that should facilitate a harmonious relationship between Nigerian Muslims and the Nigerian State.                      

OBASANJO AND BABANGIDA: DROWNING GIANTS

A bemused nation is watching a public quarrel between two former military leaders who governed Nigeria for a total of 19 years between them. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, a former General who benefited from an attempted coup that took the life of General Murtala Mohammed, and was later to become a civilian President for eight years, and General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, a military ruler for eight years who gave himself the title of President, are no strangers to controversies. But this public spat between them looks very much like a last hurrah from two persons whose egos and records in office have guaranteed the arrested development of the Nigerian nation. The quarrel is bitter because it involves two people who have tip-toed around each other for a very long time, bearing massive grievances, but unsure whether they could successfully take each other up. The quarrel is revealing in terms of the issues it raises regarding their competence, integrity, maturity and quality of their leadership, which are all being thrown into the fray. The quarrel is useful for those who are involved in writing our nation’s history, because it addresses an important chapter on the role of the military in Nigerian history. Above all, the quarrel is welcome because it will hopefully bring an end to the high profiles of two former leaders who have effectively blocked the emergence of successor generations of Nigerian leaders that are not tied to their poisonous strings. The truth is, there never was enough room in the shrinking waters of Nigerian politics for both Obasanjo and Babangida; and it is fitting that they appear to be going down together.

          Former President Ibrahim Babangida chose the occasion of his 70th birthday to publicly denounce the man he claimed many times to be a senior he will not challenge, and said he wasted historic opportunities and was total failure as a leader. He said quite a few things about the record of Obasanjo in office which should embarrass the former President, if, that is, Obasanjo is still capable of being embarrassed by anything or anybody. This is the same Babangida who dusted up Obasanjo in 1999 against the advise of his kith and kin and many other Nigerians, and helped install him as President. He had wisely kept his distance from Obasanjo when his misadventure against General Sani Abacha earned him a death sentence. This is the same Babangida who chickened out of challenging Obasanjo for the PDP’s presidential ticket in 2003 on the grounds that Obasanjo was his senior, and therefore cannot be challenged by him. This is the same Babangida who kept mute when Obasanjo’s foot soldiers were all over the nation, the media and the legislature seeking to secure for him a Third Term. This is the same Babangida who watched in silence as Obasanjo ruled Nigeria at a time when the nation earned its highest revenue; and lost the most in terms of its basic economic and social infrastructure, and its capacity to develop to its full potential. This is the same Babangida who collaborated with Atiku Abubakar, General Aliyu Mohammed and the Northern Political Leaders Forum to scuttle the effort to subvert the PDP’s rotation policy orchestrated by Obasanjo and President Jonathan, and who failed woefully in that endeavour.

          Whatever motives Babangida had for lampooning Obasanjo at this late hour, he must have expected a vigorous retort from a man who has a reputation for always giving more than he takes. Obasanjo’s retort was to say Babangida is a fool at 70, and this type of fool remains a fool until death. He claims that his records are far better than those of Babangida, and that what he did between 1976 and 1979 laid the foundations for Nigeria’s development, which Babangida’s stint as leader destroyed. Babangida’s camp then released a full salvo, with some sleazy details about the personal character of Obasanjo. The Nigerian media will naturally stoke this fire, in the hope that the two former Generals and Presidents will continue to abuse each other, and amuse a nation desperately in need of some light entertainment to divert attention from the depressing gridlock in which the nation finds itself.

          But the serious side of the quarrel should also be noted by Nigerians. Between Babangida and Obasanjo, there are many issues in our history that are yet to be revealed. The full circumstances and facts behind the abortion of the 1993 elections which may have produced Chief M.K.O Abiola as a winner are still shrouded in mystery. But the responsibility for that abortion for which the nation is still paying a huge price lies squarely on the shoulders of General Babangida. Obasanjo was not exactly in the frontline of the struggle to oppose this most offensive effrontery of the military against democracy, and when he became President himself, Obasanjo resisted every effort to investigate or humiliate Babangida over the abortion of the elections, and the many unproven allegations of gross abuse against him. The public relations stunt foisted by Obasanjo in the form of the Justice Oputa Panel made a mockery of the need to look into one of the darkest chapters of our nation’s history, and ended up raising more questions than answers. History will condemn Babangida for many failings and failures, but it is quite possible that it will also condemn him for complicity in foisting a retired General with a huge chest of personal grievances as Nigerian President in 1999. It is possible that Obasanjo repaid Babangida by sitting on his record, in spite of the most vicious campaign by politicians and their media from the Western part of Nigeria to expose them and ridicule him. If Obasanjo had allowed a genuine and transparent inquiry into the stewardship of Babangida’s eight year rule, the nation would have been spared these childish claims over who is better as a ruler of Nigeria over an eight-year period.

          Both Babangida and Obasanjo are facing imminent extinction from active Nigerian politics, and both are unsure of the verdicts of history against them. Babangida’s humiliation in the hands of the Adamu Ciroma’s quasi-tribal conclave called Northern Elders Political Forum, when he was rejected in favour of Atiku Abubakar as a northern consensus candidate to take on President Jonathan, had effectively put the nail in his political coffin. It was a most inglorious end to a controversial public life; to end up in the trashcan of history because a man who enjoyed the title of evil genius, a former General and President was unable to know when to fight or retreat; whether to outflank the enemy or take him head-on; or even to know when the game is up. Perhaps Babangida’s last salvo against Obasanjo was one he had saved for a last hurray; and perhaps it is intended to earn him a few brownie points for courage and a place in the long line of northern politicians who took up Obasanjo. Whatever his motives, he is not likely to do much damage to a man who is also drowning in his own multiple waterloos. 

          Many people will see Babangida’s attack on Obasanjo as an act of kicking a man when he is down. It is a feeble and ineffective opportunism, and will not damage a man who has more than enough on his plate of enemies. The Minister of Finance he had imported from the World Bank in 2003 and entrusted with the management of Nigerian economy, and then fired in 2006, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has been re-imported by a President he helped install. This will raise many questions about Obasanjo’s management of the Nigerian economy. Nearly everything Obasanjo touched from 1999 to 2007 in Nigeria is now in a worse state. Our economy is regressing at such a dangerous rate that it is threatening the very foundations of the Nigerian State. The leadership he contrived to install between 2007 and 2011 failed to lead, and the nation lost four valuable years. His involvement in the controversies around the nomination and election of President Jonathan contributed to the disaster which followed the elections in 2011. His Party lost out completely in his constituency, rendering him a major liability in Yoruba politics. Every time there is power outage, every Nigerian family remembers Obasanjo’s investment of billions in the power sector. Now the nation is being entertained with tales about how Obasanjo subverted due process in the scandalous stripping of many of the assets of the Nigerian people in the name of privatisation, being told by no less a man who was one of his staunchest loyalists and foot soldier, Nasir El-Rufai.

          There are likely going to be many more stories of gross mismanagement and abuse of the nation’s trust and resources which we will hear against these two prominent members of the PDP. Those who think it is embarrassing for elders to trade insults may need to check out the meaning of elders. No one should shed tears over this spat between Babangida and Obasanjo. They may each claim to have better records than the other, but Nigerians will write their own history. It will be a version of history which will flatter neither of them. A military President who ruled for eight years and acquired a reputation for serial subversion of democratic initiatives would have been better advised to keep a very low profile. The stones he is throwing from his glass house are doing more damage to him than to Obasanjo. As for Obasanjo, a man who looks set to soldier on in the belief that Nigeria will crumble tomorrow without his overbearing presence, he does not need the insults of Babangida, when he has many young former Governors of the PDP in the Southwest who insult and upbraid him in public. The tragedy for our nation is that these two people took us for a ride, between them, for 19 years.

INVESTIGATING THE MILITARY IN BORNO STATE

          The Minister of Defence is reported to have ordered the Chief of Defence Staff to probe all incidents of military misconduct in Maiduguri in the course of its current engagement against insurgents popularly referred to as Boko Haram. In particular, the Minister directed that an incident in which a woman was shot following the arrest of suspects in Biu be investigated. The Minister said that the military’s instructions during internal security operation are to arrest criminals, use minimum force only when necessary and to be tactful with the civilian population. While acknowledging that there are a few bad eggs among the military who create discontent amongst the civilian population, he said that the Armed Forces are doing a very good job in the protection of life and property in the various theatres of internal security and peace keeping operations. The Minister also appealed to the people of Borno and neighbouring states to come out and present their grievances to the Committee appointed by President Jonathan under the chairmanship of Ambassador Gaji Galtimari.

The directives of the Minister of Defence to the Armed Forces to investigate its own conduct, coincided with the revelation by the Bauchi State Commissioner of Police that over 500,000 persons fleeing the crisis in Maiduguri have moved into Bauchi State to seek refuge. For this, and many other reasons, Nigerians will receive the Ministers directives with mixed feelings. On the one hand, there will be relief that the Federal Government is demonstrating some sensitivity over widespread concerns that the heavy-handed approach of the Joint Task Force in Maiduguri is alienating the local population and creating more difficulties towards an eventual resolution of this complex conflict.

On the other hand, many people will be sceptical over the value of an exercise which involves the military investigating itself. The community, including many prominent citizens had raised numerous complaints against the conduct of the Joint Task Force, and had even gone as far as calling for the withdrawal of soldiers from the streets and the State. The community has a long list of complaints against the Joint Task Force, which include rape, unlawful killings and arrests, burning down of buildings and vehicles, as well as harassing and humiliating innocent citizens. The F0orce has however defended itself and its operational tactics as much as it could, and had insisted that its responses were legitimate and consistent with the challenges it is confronting in the environment. It had also said that it was investigating a few soldiers who may have behaved inappropriately. The Force insists that its members are being attacked, bombed and shot at by insurgents who easily melt into the community, and the community is working against it by refusing to disclose the identities and operations of the insurgents, thereby limiting their opportunities to operate.

Indeed, it has become an established factor in this terrible conflict that the extra-judicial killings of the late Boko Haram leader, Yusuf Muhammad, and his key compatriots, as well as many other apparently innocent citizens in 2008, and the failure to prosecute their killers represents one of the major grievances of the members of the group and many other people within and outside Borno State. To its credit, there is a record that the military did hand over Yusuf Muhammad alive to the police, and there is irrefutable evidence available to the whole world that he died in the hands of the police. But so much has happened in Maiduguri since the resurgence of this conflict that the citizens of this area are now reluctant to draw a distinction between soldiers and police. In fact, the dominant and visible presence of soldiers appears to have attracted all the grievances of the local population towards the military. There is little doubt that the tactics of the insurgents include pitching the local population against the members of the Joint Task Force. When soldiers or members of the public are attacked by people who disappear into the community, the response usually involves inconveniences to the community. The military will always have an excuse for its responses, but it cannot be the final judge over the appropriateness or otherwise of its actions.

The public will hope that this directive of the Minister of Defence will not only fish out and punish military personnel who might have conducted themselves in an unprofessional manner, but will also signal the beginning of a radical improvement in civil-military relations in Maiduguri and neighbouring areas. Since the Federal Government insists that the military will continue to operate in and around Maiduguri until the threat posed by the insurgency is contained, it is imperative that the Joint Task Force and the public relate better. There are very deep levels of distrust between a community which harbours dangerous insurgents, even if reluctantly, and a military which strikes back in the only manner a military is trained to strike. The combined effect of a serious and sustained vigilance over the conduct of the Joint Task Force and the opportunities which the Galtimari Committee provide should create an opportunity for the local population and the nation to limit, and ultimately resolve this damaging conflict.

The population of Maiduguri in particular, and Borno and neighbouring states in general are paying a huge price for the presence of insurgents in their midst, and a military which believes the community can be squeezed to bring them out. The citizens should encourage their children and relations who are part of this insurgency to speak out in a constructive manner through the Galtimari Committee. The leadership in Borno State should engage the members of the groups involved in this insurgency, and build bridges between them and the Committee. These should be leaders who are respected and trusted by the members, so that they can feel safe against betrayal. The members of the group or groups should also understand that there are limits to the tolerance of the public, and the current mood is one which suggests that the members should say what they want, and engage in dialogue or negotiations.