PRESIDENT JONATHAN’S SELF-ASSESSMENT

At a Church Service held on Sunday, 25^th of September to commemorate Nigeria’s 51st Independence Anniversary, President Goodluck gave a generous insight into his own assessment of his performance, the challenges he faces, and the nature of the forces he has to deal with. As befitted the surrounding and the event, the President chose historical and biblical characters and events to draw parallels with his own situation, and defined his own personal style of leadership using symbols and parables which should register deep into the psyche of Nigerians still struggling with how to define their President. President Jonathan noted that Nigeria is being praised by some world leaders while at home his fellow politicians are casting doubts over his ability to lead, and his capacity to govern. He insisted that he is the product of prayers and will survive and transform Nigeria on the strength of prayers; but he will not behave like a lion, or an army general, or a Pharaoh to achieve his goal of transforming Nigeria.

          Coming back immediately from a UN General Assembly where, among other activities, President Jonathan assured the world that manifest instances of terrorism in Nigeria will not intimidate him, the President’s comments at the National Christian Worship Centre provide a useful glimpse into the mind of a leader who is facing quite possibly the most difficult beginning of any administration in the history of our nation. For a man who has generally chosen to allow others to speak for him, the President’s comments at the special church service appear to have come from the heart.  This is why the comments are important, and should be accorded the detailed attention they deserve, because they hold a clue into how Jonathan will steer the ship of State.

          The most important aspect of the rather long and detailed lamentations of President Jonathan at the church service is that he holds a few politicians responsible for what he sees as a negative posture and hostile attitude to his administration. If President Jonathan expects sympathy from Nigerians for the opposition’s stand on the record of his administration to date, he is not likely to get much. It is the business of the opposition to punch holes in the claims of those who take decisions and make policies; and it is the cross which leaders have to bear. Invoking God’s wrath against his detractors will not help President Jonathan much, because opposition politicians will also claim that they are doing God’s work. Then there is the fact that the President’s balance sheet so far does make him vulnerable to attacks from politicians and sundry opposition. Naming them as terrible goliaths whose foreheads are exposed will not win him the tiniest of relief from a whole army of critics who had hoped that he would have by now shown a strength and resolve to make a difference in the life of Nigerians.

          President Jonathan told the congregation that part of his problem is that some people want him to be a lion or an army general, or behave like them; and he would not do that. He said he will not behave like the kings of Syria, Egypt, the Pharaoh or King of Babylon, powerful people whose deeds and follies have been mentioned in the Bible. He said he will continue to rely on prayers, so that God will continue to use him to transform Nigeria. Nigerians who watched or heard about the intended posture of Mr President will have mixed feelings over his philosophy of governance. The parallel with Biblical leaders is good for the pulpit, but hardly relevant in today’s context, when elected leaders have to operate within the limitation imposed by the constitution. President Jonathan cannot be a Nebuchadnezzar or a Pharaoh, even if he wants to be one. Those leaders had no constitutional limits to their powers. Nigerians expect their President to be a firm and fair leader, to operate within the law, and to be ready to meet challenges with courage and vision. They do not expect him to operate like an army general, even though army generals themselves have to operate within the laws of the land and the principles of their profession. But Nigerians do want him, as Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, to use army generals to protect the security and dignity of Nigerians and the Nigerian nation. This is why the Constitution places all security apparatus under his command; and this is the reason why Nigerians will hold him responsible for any deficits in their security, as they presently do.

          A more worrying insight into the mind of Mr. President is one which suggests that foreigners commend him while Nigerians castigate him. The President had told the congregation that the US and South African Presidents had commended Nigeria at the margins of the UN, but Nigerians at home are not commending him. It is worrying that a Nigerian President will value the diplomatic posturing of a few foreign leaders over the hard opinions of his fellow citizens. In plain terms, President Jonathan was not elected by President Obama, Jacob Zuma or the President of Gabon. Their views on his performance therefore should not be a yardstick for his self-assessment. If Nigerians are not applauding the President the way foreign leaders do, he needs to ask why. He may find answers in the absence of any serious evidence that his administration is moving Nigeria into new areas of achievement and consolidation. He may find answers in the obvious lack of evidence that he is breaking away from a past characterized by rampant corruption and gross incompetence. He may find answers in the spreading of violence and insecurity which makes every citizen, high and low, from Sokoto to Bayelsa to scamper for safety at the slightest hint or rumour of an impending bomb attack. He may find answers in the alarming assault on the integrity of vital institutions such as the judiciary; or in the questionable capacity of the electoral process to produce genuine leaders; or in the daily killings in many parts of the country and the apparent failure of security agencies to put a stop to them.

          President Jonathan does not need to be a Pharaoh or a lion or a General, to be a good and effective leader. Since the analogy with leaders and lions interests him, he could read an ancient Greek philosopher called Machiavelli who advised leaders to be both lions and foxes. He said a leader has to be a lion in order to survive, because unlike a fox, a lion is defenceless against traps. A leader should also be a fox who can avoid traps, but is defenceless against lions. For President Jonathan, the lesson has to be that he needs to be both firm and wise. He will always have political detractors, so lamenting their assaults on him will be little comfort to Nigerians. He will have to work hard to achieve real results in improving security for citizens, plugging corruption and waste, and reversing the appearance of his administration being run by a clique with a very narrow agenda in an ocean of incompetence. He will be wise to listen to criticisms, and work on them to turn them into commendations. Not all Nigerians who complain over the style of leadership of President Jonathan, or his record in office are necessarily his enemies. Most Nigerians just want him to lead with some decisiveness, with fairness and some vision. This is not too much to ask from a President who staked so much to achieve the position.                           

NORTHERN GOVERNORS ABOUT-FACE ON JOS

A few days before the just concluded meeting of the Northern Governors Forum, their spokesman stated that a review of the current security situation in Jos, Plateau State will be part of its agenda. He said the Governors are concerned that the resurgence of violence in Jos, and its implication for security in many parts of the North is not receiving the attention on it as it should, and that they may come up with some suggestions on the way forward. People who still have some faith in the words and credibility of the Governors must have been relieved that someone somewhere in authority will do something about this creeping nightmare that Jos is becoming.

Those people who had hoped that the Northern Governors will indeed make some earth-shaking discovery over the cause of the Jos crisis, and make profound recommendations towards its resolution will join the ranks of millions of northerners and other Nigerians who have long given up any hope that the Governors will lead the way towards solving major problems in the north, such as Jos. The resolutions of the Governors after their meeting merely invited attention to the fact that the Jos crisis is a national problem, and that there are other national security problems which also require attention. Not a word about the rumoured plans to convene a stakeholders’ forum. Not a word about a Truth Commission, or another fact finding initiative. Not a word of advice to their fellow Governor, or words of consolation to the people of Plateau State. Not a word on what else the Governors intend to do next beyond identifying Jos as a national problem.

Other Nigerians who put very little store in the hope that Northern Governors will add something new towards a resolution of the crisis in Plateau, however will point to the fact that the immediate and sustained condemnation by Governor Jang of the plan of his colleagues to discuss Jos was guaranteed to make sure that they will back down from their plan. Governor Jang’s continuous objection to any plan to isolate and discuss Jos and Plateau State as unfair, on the ground that there are many security flash points in the country, was obviously meant to dissuade his colleagues from taking any step which he does not approve of. And it worked. It worked in the same manner he succeeded in dissuading the Federal Government from taking steps which go beyond directing the military to take over security in Plateau State. It is now clear that the  reason which appears to have persuaded Governor Jang to lower his strong opposition over the take-over of security in Plateau State by military is that the Federal Government will now take the blame and responsibility for breaches and violations of public order and public security, in case they occur. He will also be taking comfort in the fact that the take-over by the military on instructions of the President has relieved him of responsibility to find a just, fair and lasting solution to the problem, which a temporary security arrangement will not do. Governor Jang must be rejoicing over what appears to be a serious error in the assumption that separating combatants will permanently eliminate the cause of their fight. He knows only too well that provision of temporary security is not the same thing as creating a lasting peace.

The Northern Governors’ stand-down will embolden Jang and those around him who are milking the crisis in Jos for political reasons. So long as Jos and neighbouring Local Government Areas are engulfed in tensions or endemic violence with naked ethnic and religious characteristics, Jang can lean on tribe and faith to build and sustain a political base built on blood and fear. He does not need to do anything else. He does not need to build hospitals, or schools, or roads, or even pay salaries. He can always blame incessant crises brought about by so-called outsiders for his inability to accomplish much to address the poverty and insecurity of citizens of Plateau.

Anyone who has followed their activities of Northern Governors should not be  disappointed by the failure of Northern Governors to intervene in a firm and constructive manner in the raging fire in Plateau State. In point of fact, most of them are no better than Governor Jonah Jang. They do not have the moral or political clout to say whether or not Jang’s   incompetence and arrogance is singularly responsible for this prolonged crisis. They cannot point to a solution that implicates either Hausa, or Birom, or the Government, or outside interests, or Federal Government, because they have, or are worried over the existence or emergence of a Jos or similar evidence of mismanagement in their own States. They cannot prescribe a line of action for Jang or the Federal Government because they fear that their stand may come back to haunt them eventually. Many of the Governors know that gross injustice and crass parochialism is responsible for fuelling the fire in Plateau States. Yet they cannot say to Governor Jang that all citizens in Plateau State deserve equal justice and treatment, which some are not getting. Many other Northern Governors have similar composition of populations in their States; yet they have no courage to advise Jang that the secret to lasting peace lies in a fair and even-handed treatment of all groups by government. Many Governors, particularly those whose States border Plateau State are living in fear that the crisis will affect their States. Yet they lack the courage to advise Jang to deal with the problem decisively and comprehensively.  

The turn around by Northern Governors around the Jos issue will confirm the worry that the North cannot and should not look up to the Governors to lead it with responsibility, courage and wisdom. Northerners are expressed to the damage caused by an absence of a unifying and purposeful leadership today more than any other time.  While other parts of Nigeria are uniting behind issues and visions; the North is drifting without leaders. Jos will continue to represent a serious threat to the people who live, suffer and die in it, because Governors from the North have no courage to engage Plateau State and the Federal Government on how the crisis can be resolved. So long as Governor Jang feels he can scare away any intervention, particularly from his colleagues, and limit Federal Government’s involvement to temporary deployment of soldiers, a strategy that relieves him of responsibility to find real peace, he will have no incentive to act. In fact, he may well take comfort from the fact that he can get away with it all because all those who may want to intervene are no better than him.     

    

MANOEUVRES FOR A FUTURE

The Ijaw Leadership Forum, one of a number of groups which claim to speak for the people in the South South geo-political zones, published in some national dailies a paid advertorial on Wednesday, 21^st September, 2011, in which it lamented the state of the Nigerian nation, and demanded that the process of amending the Nigerian Constitution which will result in a major restructuring, including a provision for the right to secede, commence without delay. While stating that they sympathize with their brother, President Goodluck Jonathan who they claim has inherited a country devastated on all fronts by what they call a criminal cabal, the signatories said to other Nigerians, enough is enough. They claimed that Nigeria’s problem originates from being held hostage by a backward ruling clique from the far north since independence, and this clique is responsible for the manner in which the far north fed fat on the resources from the Niger Delta. Now, these leaders, according to the Ijaw leaders, have impoverished their own people; who are in turn rising in discontent. The Ijaw leaders are now demanding for constitutional guarantees that they can distance their people from this northern leadership, through the control of their own resources, and through the exercise of their right to secede from Nigeria, if they wish.

          The language and assertions in the advertorial by the Ijaw Leadership Forum are neither strange nor new. This has been the manner many spokespersons from the Niger Delta have addressed their grievances and demands from the Nigerian State and fellow citizens. Even when the entire region of the south south was being daily bombed and becoming swamped in criminality, the rhetoric was shrill and frightening, and other Nigerians, particularly northerners, were being blamed for the woes of the entire citizens of the region. Now that the theatre of violence has moved substantially away from the Niger Delta, the former militants and their leaders who have benefited immensely from organised violence and widespread criminality making the case for opting out of the Nigerian nation, either substantially or completely. Characteristically, the position is put forward as a demand, and a threat that should the demand fail to be met by other Nigerians, the Ijaw leaders will deploy any means necessary to defend what they call their own from any threats.

          The crude but familiar posturing by self-styled leaders of Ijaw people is intended to serve two purposes. The first is to suggest that widespread violence under the cover of the Boko Haram group is the product of northern leaders’ negligence, and represents a political statement that some sections of the north intend to undermine the government of President Goodluck Jonathan; and ultimately, to live only under Sharia Law. The goal appears to portray the government of President Jonathan as the victim of a northern assault, which must be resisted. The second purpose of the paid outburst is to register an agenda for a future constitutional conference; and to do so not as a negotiating position, or the views of a few people, but as a non-negotiable demand which other Nigerians must concede to. The far north in particular is being put on notice as the historic enemy; and it will be held responsible in the event that the demand of the Ijaw leaders are not met.

          Since President Jonathan announced plans to proceed with his plan to seek major constitutional  amendments, including changes in the tenure of elected leaders, creation of States, electoral matters, revenue allocation, State police and Local Government system, among others, Nigerians have been reminded by many self-appointed spokespersons of old regional agendas. The South West has dusted up its old demands for a Constitutional Conference with real powers which must result in a massively-restructured federal system to give the federating units greater autonomy. The South East is reminding Nigerians of its demands for additional States and improvements in constitutional guarantees that should give Igbo people greater say in the affairs of Nigeria, and equal rights wherever they live in the nation. The South South is gearing up to fight for greater ownership and control of resources, and, as the leaders of the Ijaw people now demand, constitutional provisions for secession by any of the federating units.

          In sharp contrast, the silence from the three zones in the North, which make up more than half of Nigeria, is deafening. No one is putting forward a northern agenda; or even claiming to know what it is. The so-called far north which is generally perceived by some elements in the south and the middle belt region as being responsible for the state of the Nigerian nation is on the defensive and in disarray. Its leadership structure has collapsed, and its cohesion is being threatened by constant efforts to pull the north central zone away from the far north. It is being weakened by problems in Jos, Bauchi, Kaduna, and the threats and impact of Boko Haram violence. It is, quite possibly in its history, completely in opposition, a position so unfamiliar that it appears unable to come to grips with it. It is bleeding from bad leadership, crushing poverty and debilitating corruption. The north has never been weaker, and the rest of Nigeria appears to know this very well. This is why self-styled leaders of Ijaw people can speak in the manner they do, to a people in a region which for decades had been their best allies. They, like many other self-styled ethnic and sectional leaders seem to believe that there will be no response from a politician, or political group from the north, thanks to the complete disarray occasioned in part by the 2011 elections in the north.

          The planned constitutional review will be threatened by outbursts and demands such as those being made by Ijaw Leadership Forum. It will be threatened by the appearance that it will merely alter the structure and operations of the Nigerian State to favour a specific group and weaken others. It will be threatened by the widespread perception of an absence of a leadership with the legitimacy and mandate to undertake a major amendment in the nature of the Nigerian State. But all these should not make the north complacent. Many parts of Nigeria perceive a major weakness of the north, and they will attempt to take advantage of it. A weak north is a liability for northerners, and a threat to all Nigerians. The north needs to understand the nature and source of the threats to its position in Nigeria today, and in the future. It needs to re-engineer itself to engage the rest of Nigeria effectively and constructively in the current manoeuvres for a future.

PRESIDENT JONATHAN’S PRIORITIES

President Goodluck Jonathan plans to leave the country today, 19^th of September, to attend the 66^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. He will take with him six Ministers, including the Ministers of Justice and Power, and will, while in New York, also participate in a meeting on environmental problems to be hosted by the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. President Jonathan is scheduled to speak at the Assembly on Wednesday, September 21^st, and plans to meet with leaders of Brazil, Chile, Sri Lanka, the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, and Japan, and among others. He will also meet some key players in the global oil and gas sector. Mr President will therefore be away for at least 5 days.

          President Jonathan will be travelling out only a few days after ordering the military to take over the security of Plateau State, a directive which is in the process of being implemented. The Plateau State Government is said to be very unhappy over this directive, and it is not certain whether the order itself will improve or worsen the security situation, since the Government of Plateau State and the new security arrangement have not proved that they can work together. The President is also travelling out two days after an assassin shot dead a family member of the late Yusuf Muhammad that met last week with former President Olusegun Obasanjo in Maiduguri, Borno State. The usual spokesman of the Yusufiyya movement has released a statement denying media reports that the group is responsible for the assassination, which confirms the worrying suspicion of the existence of multiple factions of the group, or of other groups who hide behind the group to escalate the nation’s sense of insecurity.

The President is travelling out without a word from the Presidency on former President Obasanjo’s apparent misadventure, which has resulted in the cold blooded murder of a relation of Yusuf Muhammad. The nation therefore is in the dark over the President’s position regarding Obasanjo’s visit to Maiduguri and Jos. Nigerians do not know if the administration sent Obasanjo to Maiduguri and Jos. If it did not, did it know he was going? Did the President approve of President Obasanjo’s initiative, if, that is, he acted on his own? Does the Presidency have a position on the outcome of the visit, including the killing of a relation of Yusuf Muhammad, and the claims that the visit had been identified as having potentials to engage Boko Haram?

          Mr. President is travelling one day after the State Security Service announced a N25m reward for any information leading to the arrest and prosecution of a suspect in the bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja in August. Last week, a memorial service was held by the UN Staff for their colleagues who have died, and the pain and apprehension among them is still visible. Mr. President will travel to the U.N Headquarters, where he is likely to face a lot of anxious questions and demands for assurances over the security of all staff of the UN in Nigeria who have survived the bomb attack claimed by Boko Haram. He will be at the heart of the international community, and the entire world will seek assurances from him that his administration is still in control of national security in Nigeria. These are the same questions Nigerians he will leave behind in these trying times are also asking, and they are not getting the answers they need.  

          Mr President is flying out one day after the deadlocked meeting to allocate revenues between the Federal and State Governments for the month of August. The grouse of States is the less-than-transparent nature of the figures and the amounts which are being allocated to them. But the arguments are fundamental in terms of the management of the nation’s finances by the administration; and the quarrels over the lack of transparency and policy on petroleum subsidies will not help assure the international community that the Nigerian economy has settled the basics in terms of its openness and efficiency.

          Mr. President is travelling at a time when a number of States are being literary shut down by strikes over payment of legally-prescribed minimum wage of N18, 000. He will be meeting world leaders and other opinion moulders who will seek assurances from him that the Nigerian economy is still attractive for foreign investment despite widespread labour unrest. If the ASUU strike does go on next week and the problems of State Governments facing labour action over minimum wage is unresolved, the condition of the economy will be much worse.

          All leaders like to visit General Assemblies of the United Nations. It gives them opportunities to address the world; to put forward their nations’ values, commitments and concerns; and to meet and discuss matters of great importance to their politics, economy and security with other leaders. Countries gain much from outings, but they have to take something positive to the engagements. In the case of Nigeria, President Jonathan’s visit will be preceded by very detailed and public knowledge of the serious security situation in the country. While the visit may afford President Jonathan an opportunity to condole the U.N community over the loss of their colleagues, and assure the UN and the global community that steps are being taken to prevent further attacks, the visit will also involve some very searching and direct questioning of Mr. President’s rationale for visiting New York at a time when the security situation in Nigeria is getting worse, not better. His visit would have been preceded by detailed cables outlining the threats from Boko Haram, from Jos, and from labour, most of which will tell other world leaders that President Jonathan may be addressing the wrong audience. His assurances of being on top of the situation in terms of the security; and of the attractiveness of the Nigerian economy may therefore fail to make any direct impact.

          President Jonathan’s visit to the United Nations General Assembly at this time is ill-advised and it shows poor judgement at the highest levels of the administration. It will assure neither the international community nor Nigerian citizens that national security represents a major priority for the administration. Nigeria would have lost nothing if President Jonathan had not attended the 66^th Session of the U.N General Assembly. But it will gain nothing by our President’s outing at a time when the nation needs him to take personal charge of our security.        

CLOSING UP AGAINST TERROR

It would appear that the Federal Government has chosen to pursue the strategy of closing itself up against creeping and dangerous insurgency across the nation and the escalation of violence in Jos. Key points such as residences of V.I.Ps, offices and security installations are being boarded up by elaborate security arrangements. Much of the centre of Abuja is now locked behind checkpoints, scanners, C.C.T.V and strict entry and exit arrangements. Vulnerable points are likely to be similarly sealed up behind security arrangements. While all these may or may not make central Abuja safer for government officials and some citizens, they will raise the feelings of insecurity among and around the citizenry. And they will not address the worrying spread of the violence in other old flashpoints. The impression being created is that government is locking itself up behind elaborate security boundaries, but has no response for the worsening phenomenon of Boko Haram insurgency or the resurgence of daily killings in Jos.

Ten years after Al Qaida members undertook the most daring assault on western powers by bombing the New York Twin Towers, Nigeria is feeling the heat of organized terror and the resurgence of communal conflict which is being stoked by dangerous complacency and incompetence of its leaders. Ten years ago, Nigerians watched television pictures of the slaughter of thousands of people in America by a group which had vowed to fight America and bring it to its knees. As part of the global community, most Nigerians felt the pain and revulsion which every civilized people should feel for an act which in the end changed the world more than any event in recent history. Nigeria played its role in all areas which were aimed at making our world a safer place. We even passed an anti-terrorism legislation, which from all appearances, was an off-shoot of other legislation targeting terror with its source largely outside Nigeria.

Even as we went along with the rest of the world in the fight against terror, our nation was dealing with its own domestic manifestation of terror. Ten years ago, organized violence was emerging around the Niger Delta, as a real threat. Kidnappings, bombings and sabotage of oil installations were clearly aimed at scoring political goals through the widespread use of terror. Criminal elements cashed in on the act, and the entire South South Zone and many parts of the South East were taken over by criminals and political agitators using criminal tactics. In those days, the mass killings in Jos which have now become endemic, and periodic riots around religion were the other threats to national security but they became more serious and permanent threats they were poorly handled.

Since then, the Niger Delta insurgency and criminality appears to have subsided, but only at a huge cost. There are reports that as many as 22,000 former militants are currently receiving training all over the world under the amnesty and rehabilitation programme. While the Niger Delta insurgency was being handled as a political problem, the threat of another insurgency from the North East was rearing its head. This one had a clear religious content, but was unclear in terms of its political objectives. Its initial intimate links with local politics, and the failure of the Federal and neighbouring States to recognise its potentials to feed on existing sentiments made it difficult to adopt an appropriate strategy to deal with it as an emerging threat. When it did become a threat, the response of the authorities secured a temporary respite, but drove it underground to resurface as a much stronger threat. Today, the nation is under siege from many threats, and our governments’ responses appear uncoordinated and limited largely to attempts to throw technology and barrickades against it, or to ignore it and hope that it will go away.

President Jonathan appears to have little to fight these widening spectres of violence with, other than building security walls and checkpoints and use of technology which is of questionable utility. Every time a high profile violent act takes place, Mr President fumes and promises to apprehend those behind if. On some occasions, he even says he knows those behind the acts. Yet the bombings continue. Then he disappears, leaving spokespersons to tell us how insecure we are. Abuja, the seat of government is now a garrison of barricades, yet the people who live there are no safer. In Jos, people live with daily horrific murders, and there but no fresh initiatives from the State or Federal Governments to bring them to an end. Neighbouring areas are catching the fire. Southern Kaduna is tense. A bomb factory was reported to have been found at a location between Niger State and the Federal Capital Territory. Threats are issued daily, and rumours fly all over the country of new threats, and government appears to respond by chasing every rumoured threat with barricades, body scanners and patrol vehicles. When citizens see more of these, they get more scared.

The threat of more terror and the unending bloodbath in Plateau State which has the potential to spread, is affecting millions of Nigerians very badly. There is a widespread perception that governments and security agencies have no response to these threats other than chasing them around and building walls around them. We are spending huge amounts in improving physical security of important persons and places, but public security is still being threatened. Rumours of bombings of bridges in Lagos, hotels in Abuja or railines in Kaduna generate panic among ordinary folk because the believe they can be real victims.

The most important demand Nigerians now make of President Jonathan’s administration at this stage is to address the issue of widespread insecurity and actual violence which threatens to paralyse the nation. We cannot all live behind checkpoints, barrickades or bullet-proof vests. Our leaders must show themselves as active and concerned. They must explore all avenues to seek immediate and realistic solutions to the creeping insurgency under the cover of Boko Haram, and the bloodbath in Plateau. How they do this is the business of government, but it cannot be done until President Jonathan moves from threats and condemnations to taking the type of action which goes beyond merely securing a few kilometres of Abuja, and leaving the rest of the nation at the mercy of bombs, bullets and machetes.

ARRESTING EDUCATION

The Minister of State for Education, Barrister Ezenwo Nyeson Wike has said that the Ministry of Education at the Federal level will begin enforcing the penal provisions of the universal Basic Education (U.B.E) Act against parents who deny their children the right to basic education. The Minister lamented that a portion of Nigeria’s population is still illiterate, and that the current national adult literacy rate is estimated at 56.9 percent. The Minister’s threat to throw the law against parents and guardians who violate the requirement that all Nigerian children must attend schools until the end of secondary education will sound like a tired refrain. Most Nigerians would have preferred to hear that government has found a more effective strategy to ensure that more children go to school than the use of threats.

The introduction of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) in the 1970s, and its re-introduction in the last few years were welcome as bold policy initiatives that will build a solid foundation for a strong, united and prosperous nation through the provision of quality and free education to its youth. The Universal Primary Education, vastly increased the number of Nigerian children who attended schools. It expanded the number of classrooms, and recruited and trained more teachers. Expenditure on public education was expanded, and UPE schools churned out millions of school leavers. The problem was that the products of the UPE schools were poorly educated, and they were unprepared for anything else in life other than aspiring to proceed to higher levels of education. Those however, were not available on the scales required, and most of the UPE products did not have entry requirements. This was despite the massive expansion of tertiary education and opportunities for teacher education. The overall result was that the UPE programme turned out millions of young Nigerians whose education was too poor for higher education, and too inadequate for employment in an economy increasingly available only to skilled personnel. The ranks of the unemployed and underemployed young people grew, and agriculture in particular suffered because it lost potential hands to urban areas where young people became involved in petty trade or craft, or petty theft.

After two decades of experimentation, many parents became reluctant to send their children to government schools. Many parents had resisted anyway, choosing instead to send millions of children to almajirci schools where they believed they at least had a chance to learn their ways into heaven in the hereafter. Others preferred to keep children at home to learn petty trades and skills, because at least the training gave them a better chance to live productive lives as adults than children who went to schools that gave them neither education nor skills.

Private education took the bulk of children of the wealthy, the powerful and the privileged. Public funded education declined further in quality. Although more children went to school, they received less and less quality education. Those of them who went further than secondary level education into Colleges of Education, Polytechnics, and Universities took their low quality education there. The system adjusted lower to accommodate them. Education policy pandered to the damaging assumption that every young Nigerian in school must get a university degree, irrespective of their abilities. Cheating and corruption became decisive factors in terms of what education a young Nigerian got. The quality of education crashed, and Nigerian graduates who a few decades ago ranked among the best in the world, became suspects in good international institutions. The poor quality of education from primary school to university reflected in all sectors of society which engaged its products. In the civil service, and other services, in the private sector and even in universities, the quality of performance of new entrants and overall efficiency was embarrassingly low. The nation has paid a terrible price for the crash in its education standards, and the few Nigerians who are privileged to attend expensive, private foreign institutions cannot make the difference.

The Universal Basic Education was a dusted-up version of the old UPE, but it was introduced in a context which was even worse than that of the old U.P.E. The UPE enjoyed initial, massive support, the result of an effective and intense campaign, and the lure of free education. The UBE came to life amidst the ruins of the UPE and all its negative aftermath. It is doubtful if any serious study was undertaken to identify why UPE started so well and delivered so little. But the reasons why U.B.E was not going to address all the failures and limitations of the UPE were all there. More children were out of school, and the State had no moral authority or political capacity to force parents to send their children to schools without teachers, seats or roofs. Corruption had eaten too deeply into the administration of Primary education provided by Local Governments, and only the children of the poor went to these government Primary schools. Children learn nothing in them, while bureaucrats and politicians made millions from them, and then used the diverted monies to send their own children to expensive private schools. Even teachers in government primary schools sent their own children to private schools, and many of them abandoned children of the poor in government schools to go and teach children of the rich in private schools which cannot afford to hire teacher in math and science subjects. The involvement of the Federal Government in overseeing the Universal Basic Education is an untidy arrangement that substantially left the situation pretty much as it is.

In the midst of this messy situation, the threat of the Minister to prosecute parents who do not send their children to school will not disturb a single parent, or help the cause of the millions of Nigerian children who desperately need to receive quality education as a matter of right. If the Federal and State governments are serious about child education, they should put enough resources into education, and eliminate corruption from it. Virtually all parents, including many who prefer to send their children to almajirci schools, will willingly send their children to modern schools if they are convinced that they will receive good and proper education that will prepare them for life as responsible adults.

The most profound and tangible legacy all governments can leave behind is to radically improve the quality of education for young Nigerians, who constitute more than 50% of the population. The children of poor Nigerians are not receiving good education from government funded primary and secondary schools. They will grow up as 50% of adult population which cannot contribute to the economy, Children of the rich and wealthy go to expensive private schools in Nigeria and oversees, yet they have to live with the same children of the poor who have no education, no skills, and no assured future. They will spend their lives behind walls and tinted glasses, in fear of 50% of the population which received no education. Parents know what is good for their children, and most would want their children to receive good education and become good and productive adults. They do not need threats. What they need is honest leadership, and visionary and good policies on education that will keep every Nigerian child from the age of 4until 18 in a good school.

KANO’S THEATRE OF THE ABSURD

As traditional rulers in northern Nigeria go, the Emir of Kano Alhaji Ado Bayero ranks among the most powerful and influential. He has been on the throne of his forebears for so long that majority of Kano people were not even born when he was made Emir. He had been, for most of his reign as Emir, the embodiment of dignity and respect generally associated with traditional rulers in the north. He had maintained a healthy distance from politics in the past, except for the occasion when he fell foul of the anger of the then Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari for travelling to Israel along with his friend, the Oni of Ife without approval and clearance from Federal Government. Another time, his clash with the Kano State Government under the late Abubakar Rimi and the PRP resulted in one of the worst riots Kano city had witnessed. The people had risen then, in support of the Emir. The Kano State Government lost that skirmish, licked its wounds, and lost the next elections.

The Emir of Kano is in the eye of another political storm. This time it is a tussle to assert the power and authority of the returned PDP Governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso over the Emir. The tussle is also about Governor, Kwankwaso’s desire to remove the legacy and structures of the Governor he took over from, Malam Ibrahim Shekarau of the ANPP. Malam Shakarau himself had defeated Governor Kwankwaso in 2003. This latest chapter in this melodrama involves a very public attempt by Governor Kwankwaso to humiliate the Emir of Kano into paying him courtesies during the sallah celebrations, in spite of the reported illness of the Emir. For three days, the people of Kano watched as the Governor and the palace engaged each other in a game which had only one objective, which was to see who was more powerful. In the end, the Emir acquiesced and submitted to the power of the Governor, but not before winning substantial public sympathy as a tired old man who is being bullied by stronger political forces.

It obviously meant a lot to Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso that the Emir of Kano performed the Hawan Nassarawa which involved recognizing the superiority of the Governor, which had been a long tradition. It must also have meant much for the Emir to resist the pressures of the Governor, and every excuse, including ill health of the Emir who returned from Saudi Arabia only a few days before Sallah was used by his palace to avoid the annual ritual. In the end, no side hid the fact that the tussle was all about who had more power, but it was not so much between Kwankwaso and the Emir, but between Kwankwaso and his predecessor, Shekarau who had a very close relationship with the Emir.

The drama involving Emir of Kano and Governor Kwankwaso during Sallah is a continuation of a very destructive and wasteful campaign being waged by Governor Kwankwaso against the administration of Shekarau. It is a drama in which no one is innocent. Shekarau became Governor by defeating Kwankwaso, a sitting Governor who had demoted him from his elevated position as permanent secretary in the state civil service to a classroom teacher just to humiliate him. As soon as he became Governor, he too embarked on a very bitter series of investigations against Kwankwaso and his administration, much of which were clearly targeted at humiliating Kwankwaso and stripping him of his political assets, and even his personal freedom. Kano State became a no-go area for Kwankwaso for a very long time; and it is a political miracle that he even survived to contest, not to talk of winning the 2011 elections against Shekarau’s man in April this year. Most people will say it that it would have been an even bigger miracle if Kwankwaso did not repay Shekarau in his own coins.

The Emir’s offence is that he allowed himself to become too intimate with a politician and his baggage of liabilities. During his 8-year period as Governor, Shekarau had courted the favours of the Emir using every opportunity and avenue, and the two of them enjoyed an excellent relationship. The Emir topped it all up by giving the serving Governor the title of Sardaunan Kano, and went the extra step of stating publicly that the title is superior to most titles in Kano, including those of his children. A serving Governor who is the boss of the Emir accepted a title from the Emir, and compromised both the weight of his own office, as well as the clear lines that separated elected as distinct from traditional authority.

Even though Kwankwaso’s father is a District Head, and his brother a village head, both positions which hey hold only at the pleasure of the Emir, Kwankwaso sees the Emir of Kano as an irritating reminder of the era of Shekarau. The Emir became fair game for Kwankwaso, and became therefore just another target to hit the way he demolished buildings, revoked plots and contracts, and instituted his own probe panels; as well as removing everything else that Shekarau did or left behind. This is what explains the attempt to force the Emir to submit, publicly, to the authority of the Governor.

Kwankwaso’s offence is that he has proved stubbornly incapable to charting his own new course. He appears totally consumed by the desire for revenge, so much that he appears to think he has been elected only to undo what Shekarau did, or to get his pound of flesh. Kano State is stuck between the past and the future, and no one is sure when or how Kwankwaso will be satisfied to move on. In the meantime, salaries of civil servants are not being paid; the new administration is making new enemies who will wait until Kwankwaso finishes his term to strike; or will fight him even now. Kwankwaso is behaving like one incapable of learning from history; and as a Kano man, he is ignoring the dictum that someone in Kano always has more of whatever you have.

What is going on in Kano State is a very good example of how leaders should not behave. Shekarau’s life will be full of pain and misery; just the way he used his office to treat Kwankwaso. Kano State lost a lot through his campaigns against Kwankwaso, and his administration delivered much less than it promised in almost all areas. His spectacular failure to make a real difference in Kano during his eight years as governor may be the result of his failure to rise above limitations of personal character. Kwankwaso is falling into the same trap, and this vicious circle will consume many of his opportunities to make impact. The Emir of kano is paying the price for an impaired judgement which is uncharacteristic for a man of his experience and exposure. He has damaged the integrity and value of his throne, and it is by no means certain that the cat-and-mouse between him and Governor Kwankwaso will not continue to harm the position of the Emir.

Events in Kano have many lessons for the rest of Nigeria. They are some of the reasons why political office holders hold tenaciously to power, because once out of it, they are treated very badly by their successors; and the public tends to behave as if they deserve everything they get because they exercised power. What is happening in Kano should remind traditional rulers to steer clear of partisan politics and politicians. Right now, many of our most prominent Emirs including the Emir of Kano, are still reliving the trauma of the attacks they suffered at the hands of rampaging mobs during the riots which followed the Presidential elections. Above all, what is happening in Kano should serve to remind Nigerians to be more discerning in terms of the quality of leaders they elect in future. The people of Kano are among the most politically-sophisticated in the country. But time after time, they tend to elect people who only desire to settle scores. They did when they rejected Rime for Bakinzuwo. They punished Kwankwaso with a bitter Shekarau. They punished Shekarau for his disloyalty to Bahari by electing his nemesis, Kwankwaso. Nevertheless, they do not deserve what Shekarau did or failed to do in eight years as Governor; and they certainly do not deserve another four or eight years of vengeful administration under Kwankwaso. The tragedy is that between the two of them, these Governors have offended every type of leader or authority who would otherwise say, enough is enough. Governors are elected to work for people; not to settle personal scores.

THE 100 DAYS RITUAL

Tomorrow the 6th of September, 2011 will mark be the 100th day since newly-elected President, 26 State Governors and new or re-elected legislators at Federal and State levels were sworn-in for new 4-year terms. Nigerians will therefore go through another ritual involving public outpouring of sycophancy and empty adulation of elected leaders. Our newspapers and airwaves will be full of congratulations and praises for giant strides made by the President and Governors in the 100 days since they were sworn-in. Governments themselves will spend millions of public funds telling the same public how much impact they have made in just 100 days. An assortment of government contractors, lobbyists for new contracts, businessmen and corporate bodies with an eye on lucrative contracts, party executives, political office holders benefiting from crass patronage, Chairmen of Local Government Councils whose future depend entirely on the disposition of Governments, will all take out expensive adverts to congratulate our new leaders for their spectacular achievements in just one hundred days. Their Excellencies may also note those who do not splash out with praises and adulation as enemies and adversaries to watch out for.

This ritual has many tragic consequences. One in that almost all the funds used to lie to the elected office holders and the public belong to the public; either directly as government funds, or because they are funds being used by others to attract more government spending through heavily-inflated contracts. Another tragic dimension to this wasteful ritual is that some of the elected officials may actually believe that the outpouring of praises and conjured achievements are a true record of what they have accomplished in 100 days. Yet another dimension of the ritual is that the public which is targeted by this choreographed programme of ritual lying is both offended and distanced even further from those who a few weeks ago were begging and bribing and fighting and rigging their way into offices. Members of the public who are the best judges over the performance of Mr. President, Governors and Legislators will be told how much their lives have been touched for the better in 100 days; how major strides are being taken by leaders and administrations and how solid foundations are being laid for spectacular governance, all in the last one hundred days. Yet another angle to the ritual is that the media, supposedly the guardian of public interest, will make much money from a practice which serves only one purpose, and that is to waste public funds and entrench a culture of sycophancy around elected officials.

But by far the most tragic dimension to this tragedy is that it will pass as usual without a vigorous protest from Nigerians. This happens because we have become accustomed to being abused by leaders we elected to lead with honesty and with respect for us and the laws of the land. Many have become leaders by cheating and rigging their ways into office, with active connivance of a few citizens; or with massive indifference from majority of citizens. We have become resigned to the sad reality that public funds are entirely at the disposal of elected officials to use as they wish, and if they decide to spend millions on adverts praising themselves, then so be it. We will read and hear or see a bundle of lies and false claims, and we will tolerate or dismiss them as the manner things are done in Nigeria.

A few Nigerians may want to remind fellow citizens, however, that the last one hundred days have been the most trying three months in the life of our nation. A new leadership was sworn-in amid the smouldering fires lit by unprecedented violence which followed their election. The entire leadership is yet to come to grips with the full impact of that violence, and what its implications are for nation. In many States, particularly in the north, most of the Governors are still shell-shocked from the violence, and many have not ventured out of their State capitals largely our of fear. In most States, Governors have used up their first 100 days in office just to appoint members of their State Executive Councils and part of the army of political hangers-on. They are yet to settle down to the job of running governments that will be challenged to address dangerous levels of poverty and corruption. Second-term Governors have been shocked and dismayed by the price they had to pay for their re-elections. First-term Governors have spent stupendous amounts to get elected, and are shocked to find empty treasuries and intimidating liabilities. There are political enemies all around; and loyalists and fixers to settle and accommodate.

The President, who came to power on the back of a very trying controversy which exposed the nation to the dangers of playing politics with ethnicity, religion and pure, unbridled monetized politics, is yet to impress the nation with an agenda or any action that will justify his intense desire to be President. The nation is more insecure today than it was this time last year. His first 100 days in office have witnessed spectacular bombing campaign another acts of violence which have left the nation more exposed than it has ever been to dangerous, hidden forces which we hear now, have international dimensions. Old flashpoints like Jos and Kaduna are flaring up again, and Borno and neighbouring states are largely unsafe for ordinary citizens and security personnel. The nation is being ravaged by floods, and many families will mark the first 100 days in office of their leaders in refugee camps, flood shelters or mourning for loved ones.

Yet the nation will be told that we have much to celebrate for the life and work of leaders who have spent 100 days in office. Most of these leaders are facing tough legal challenges which makes it difficult for them to concentrate on governance. Some will survive these challenges, while others will not. Some are still unsure over what to do with the people’s mandate, while others are busy dismantling the works and legacies of their predecessors. Still, public funds will be used to sing their praises to the high heavens. Not one Governor will own up to the task ahead, and plead that public resources should not be wasted to lie to the public that he is the messiah. The first 100 days in office of the present leadership may actually simply remind Nigerians that they have no leaders with the capacity and competence to lead the nation out of its severely restricting limitations. If the first 100 days must be marked, they should be marked with humility by our leaders, and intense prayers that our leaders will begin to govern well, and not on the pages of newspapers.

NIGERIA’S STAND ON LIBYA: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE

As soon as it became obvious that the combined assault of Libyans who took up arms against the intransigence and arrogance of their leader, Muammar Gaddafi, as well the intense bombing campaign of NATO forces appeared to be tipping the balance of the war against Gaddafi, the Nigerian government announced that it was recognizing the National Transitional Council (N.T.C) as the legitimate government in Libya. The Nigerian government therefore broke ranks with the African Union and key African countries whose opinions and views are vital on all matter relating to developments in Africa. The Nigerian Government must have thought that it was charting a course for the rest of Africa in the manner it rushed to take a position. It must also have assumed that Gaddafi would fall much earlier than now, but he is still fighting. Finally, Nigeria must have assumed that its early recognition will earn it some credit points with NATO countries and the US. Nigeria has been wrong on all three assumptions.

Nigeria’s pre-eminent position in Africa, carved out during decades of sacrifice, statesmanship and courage by former Nigerian leaders, and a steadfast and enlightened support from the Nigerian people has been substantially eroded in the last two decades. From the mid 1970s until the mid 1990s, every step Nigeria took at the African and global stage was well thought-out, and was informed by the core concerns for the integrity and interest of the African people. The African continent and the world cultivated or waited for Nigeria to take a stand on African issues before taking a stand. Nigerian troops and funds were deployed all over Africa to resolve and sustain security and peace, and many lives of Nigerian soldiers were sacrificed so that other Africans can find peace in their countries. The Western world courted Nigeria on all sensitive and strategic issues, and avoided serious disagreements with Nigeria. With other African nations such as Egypt, Algeria, Senegal, South Africa and Ethiopia, among others, Nigeria also consulted widely, and retained the trust and faith of African countries on all vital issues on security and development.

Nigeria lost that pre-eminent position, in spite of it large population, economic clout and strategic importance through sheer incompetence and a succession of leaders who were happier to be applauded by the western nations than by their own people. It also lost its position to other African nations which focussed on real development around their own people, and which recognized that globalization has made it necessary to compete with all nations, or perish. Nigeria’s image of a rich but corrupt and insecure nation, and of it leaders and people who had abandoned the hallowed values of handwork and sacrifice as foundations for real and sustained development, made it easier for Western nations and emerging Asian powers to pitch tents with other smaller, but better-organized African nations. Nigeria became just another African nation, challenged by smaller nations at every forum and occasion, and ignored by the world’s major powers. It was useful only for its oil, and the world worried over the potentials of a serious conflict in Nigeria for the rest of Africa and the world.

The rapidly declining influence of Nigeria in African and world affairs will explain its failure to rally African countries around a common position at the beginning of a civil war in Libya that showed, from the onset, that it will take many casualties in its course. One of its first casualties was African unity of propose and the capacity to limit the potential damage which NATO countries’ involvement in the Libyan civil war will entail. Africa stood watching; and the few nations which took a stand, such as South Africa, acted purely on the basis of informed self interest. Libyan people received no comfort or inspiration from fellow African people, while NATO countries exploited their desperate need for assistance and support to implement a long-standing agenda of removing Muammar Gaddafi. Africa lost an opportunity to reinforce its unity and resolve, and take a position consistent with the interest of Libyan people.

Nigeria’s almost unilateral and hasty recognition of the National Transitional Council (N.T.C) merely highlights the absence of strategic thinking and poor quality of our foreign policy. It is obvious that the rush to support the NTC was informed by the expectation that Gaddafi would fall. He has not, at least not yet, and the NTC is still substantially recognized by NATO countries. It is also by no means clear that the N.T.C will be able to form and lead a nation which will go through many challenges. Certainly, the N.T.C will have to be run by NATO countries, and unless Nigeria wants to be a lackey of these countries, its position needs some distance from their’s. If Nigerian’s hasty recognition of the N.T.C is also aimed at impressing NATO countries, then the administration has badly miscalculated the political space available in the conflict. NATO is in this struggle of the Libyan people for itself and its need for Libyan oil resources, and it will not yeild any ground for Nigeria, particularly now that it has no capacity to bring in the rest of Africa in tow. Even more important, Nigeria's lone position in Africa will not impress the Libyan people, who know only too well that it is too little too late.

Nigeria could have considered a number of options before taking a position which is out of step with the rest of Africa. One option would have been to pursue a vigorous campaign to rally Africa behind one position in relation to the Libyan crisis long before its current stage. Africa needed to take a position on the moral and political imperatives of the conflict, and may have helped in easing Gaddafi out, or negotiating his position with his people. Or it could itself have adopted an aggressive campaign against Gaddafi, and led the mobilization of international diplomatic and, if necessary, a military onslaught against Gaddafi. This way, it could have reduced the scale of involvement of NATO, and therefore the potential damage of long-term Western influence in the Maghreb.

As things stand, Nigeria is being criticised by fellow African nations for its decision on Libya. It could ignore these criticisms, as it appears to be doing, but it will do so only at some cost of the remnants of its credibility as an African leader. Nigeria’s decision to recognise the N.T.C. at a stage when all the factors at play are not yet clear will not yield much dividend. Whatever happens, Gaddafi’s hold as Libyan leader is over. His removal is a victory of the Libyan people and a strategic coup for NATO countries. Africa lost an opportunity much earlier to stand with the Libyan people against a dictator. The Libyan people will remember this in future. They are not likely to remember that Nigeria attempted to make up for lost ground by a diplomatic initiative that is too little, too late.

WHERE IS PRESIDENT JONATHAN?

    There are reports that security agencies have made some arrests in connection with the bombing of the United Nations office is Abuja last week. In the last few days, the Inspector-General of Police has made statements to the media on the on-going investigations, and has met with the Diplomatic Community to give them assurances on their safety. Then a spokesperson of the State Security Service briefed the media, and announced that it has evidence that the two arrested person have links with al-Qaeda, and that it is looking for a third suspect. The SSS spokesperson also confirmed that precise intelligence was obtained by her organization to the effect that some Boko Haram members were planning to attack unspecified targets in Abuja. Yet the attack took place, which says much about the capacity of our security agencies.

Beyond the televised appearance of President Jonathan at the scene of the attack, and the comments he made promising to apprehend the bombers, Nigerians have not seen their President take charge of the events following the bombing, or take other steps to assure them of their safety. The bombing of the U.N Building in Abuja, which followed the bombing of the Police Headquarters a few months ago have created genuine fear among citizens that they are not adequately protected. The fact that even the bombs that went off on October 1st last year, when Nigerians celebrated 50 years of independence has its prime suspect being tried in far away South Africa makes the perception of Nigerians regarding their safety and security even more worrisome.

Perhaps it is a matter of personal style for President Jonathan to allow heads of security agencies or their spokespersons to speak to the nation on major developments relating to national security. And as matters of national security go, they do not come bigger than the bombing of the UN building and the Police headquarters in Abuja. They become even more threatening when they are claimed by a group already well known, and which promises even more bombs on Nigerians and the international community. On occasions when the sense of security of a whole nation is threatened and assaulted on the type of scales we are witnessing, Nigerians expect to see their President speak to them directly. This is what leaders do. While they may leave matters of details to heads of security agencies, they put themselves forward to assume responsibility for coordinating major investigations and reassure the population that government is serious about their security. But President Jonathan has chosen to stay in the background, and this is not giving Nigerians the type of assurances they need.

Nigerians need a strong, confident and visible leadership, particularly at this time when their safety and security is being threatened from many quarters. They need a leadership which should assure them that the threats being posed by Boko Haram, and, as is being speculated, its partners in al-Qaeda will be contained. They need to hear from the President the broad outlines of his strategy to deal with this problem, and not just routine condemnations and threats to expose them. They need to hear of progress towards finding both short and long-term solutions.

Beyond the threats being posed by Boko Haram, Nigerians need to see their President take a lead in finding a solution to the festering problem in Plateau State. The last few days have reminded the nation that this problem is very much with it; and it will not go away by being ignored. Unless it is the case that the President and the Federal Government have given up this terrible security and political cancer that is in Plateau, either as beyond solution or as entirely the business of Plateau State Government to solve or live with, Nigerians need to see what action the President is taking to help. Kaduna State, the home State of the Vice President is also still substantially under threat of periodic skirmishes which have potentials to escalate. There is a major challenge requiring statesmanship and vision to deal with the long-term solution in this State which is living a garrisoned existence. What happens in Kaduna tends to affect what happens in the rest of Nigeria, and this is the reason why President Jonathan must show an active interest in working with the government and the people of the State to find a genuine solution to the current situation. The Federal and State Governments need to know that deploying soldiers and policemen across the length and breadth of the State alone cannot guarantee long term and genuine peace and security. A good example of the failure to find solution beyond deploying soldiers is being played out in Kafanchan, where curfew has been imposed again as a result of some fracas.

President Jonathan should also be actively visible in comforting and condoling hundreds of thousands of Nigerians who have suffered devastating losses, including many lives, in the recent floods ravaging the country. The people of Lagos and Oyo States, the citizens of Kano and Zamfara States and many other communities will draw much comfort from their President if he were to visit and comfort them over their losses. If there are areas where the Federal Government should help, Nigerians need to hear it from their President, not agency heads.

Politics is all about affecting the lives of citizens. Great leaders combine an acute sense of occasion with genuine compassion for the citizens who look up to them to lead them through trying times as well as good times. President Jonathan’s behind-the-scene and Abuja-based governance strategy is depriving him of an opportunity to connect with Nigerians. It is also depriving Nigerians of the right to receive the type of service from a President they elected only a few months ago to serve them. Self interest alone should dictate that President Jonathan makes himself visible and demonstrate that he is in control. Gaps which exist between leaders and citizens are often exploited by interests which harm both. Nigerians cannot suffer anymore harm, and if they have to, their leader must be seen to be personally with them.