DIM ODUMEGU OJUKWU: A PAST SO PRESENT

          Dim Odumegu Ojukwu died on Saturday, 26^th of November 2011 at the age of 78. Most of the comments made about him said he was a hero, a patriot and a statesman who lived a full life. Many said he would be sadly missed, and his political shoes will be difficult to fill. General Yakubu Gowon who led Nigeria against Ojukwu’s 30-month rebellion said he never regarded Ojukwu as an enemy, even as took up arms against Nigeria.  He said Ojukwu died a committed Nigerian who even attempted twice to become a democratically-elected leader of Nigeria. President Goodluck Jonathan said Ojukwu was forced into the leading role he played during the Nigerian civil war out of his immense love for his people, justice, equity and fairness. He praised him for his commitment to reconciliation and the full reintegration of his people into a united and progressive Nigeria after the war. General Muhammadu Buhari said in his life, Ojukwu was many things to many people: a soldier, a leader, a rebel and a politician. Senate President David Mark said that Ojukwu deserves a prominent chapter in the history of Nigeria, and no one can deny the fact that he played his role creditably according to the dictates of the time.

These views about the life and times of Dim Ojukwu represent one version of history, and it is fair to say that they represent the verdict of history that Ojukwu himself would value above all others. For a man who made the full circle, from a soldier sworn to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria; to a rebel who took up arms against it; to a politician who failed to find a fitting place in an emerging democratic system; then back to a leader of a tribal political party in a nation where tribes have failed to yield grounds for emergence of citizens, Ojukwu’s life is a study in the challenging history of the Nigerian federal system.

Ojukwu made history; and was made by Nigerian history. A tribal hero when he made the decision to pull the Eastern Region out of Nigeria, history will also remember him as a villain whose ego and tragic miscalculations brought the people he attempted to lead to freedom, to their knees. He was not part of the reconciliation and reintegration process: that part will be assigned by history to federal leaders who defeated him. He was not part of the incredible pace of rehabilitation and re-integration of Igbos and other Easterners into the rest of Nigeria, which showed that his rebellion had little organic foundations. That part of history will be credited to leaders who had vision and statesmanship, and who understood that Nigerian unity was a lot more resilient than Ojukwu himself believed.

But history will have a place for Ojukwu as a leader who stood for his people when they appeared to have fallen victims of the destructive ethnic-motivated political events which changed the course of the history of the young Nigerian free nation. Many innocent Easterners, which included many non-Igbos were killed in the north in what appeared to be a reaction to a perceived Igbo or Eastern coup which killed Northern and Western leaders. Many Northerners were also killed in the East. A young military leadership which found itself thrust into power with huge sectoral influences tried to keep the nation afloat without success. Ojukwu’s solution was to pull Igbos and other Easterners out of Nigeria into a new nation, Biafra, in spite of many attempts to dissuade him.  A democratic process which was being severely tested by strong ethnic pulls had collapsed on the head of young military officers who had very clear ideas about the need to keep the nation’s unity intact. The cumulative effects of the AG’s betrayal of Azikiwe which forced him to retreat to the East and wear his Igbo tribal toga as politician; the crisis in the West when Awolowo’s larger-than-life image brooked no dissent, and whose political empire was being assaulted by the Northern People’s Congress from within; the crisis with communities in today’s Middle Belt which showed that even the Sardauna’s fabled grip on Northern politics was largely exaggerated had eroded the foundations of unity among the political elite in the build up to the 1966 coup. By accident or design the 1966 coup portrayed an Igbo or Eastern agenda to achieve a regime change in its favor. Northern officers fought back with their own coup; and it all proved too much for Ojukwu, who then said that secession was the only solution, since Igbos were not wanted in Nigeria.

  For thirteen years, from 1966 until 1979, the nation lived under the rule of the military, which fought a war; engineered a remarkable reconciliation and reintegration; received unprecedented revenues and began to administer a government with huge resources in a poor country; lost the battle against corruption and against its own cohesion and integrity. Those 13 years severely underdeveloped democratic values and institutions. A hesitant and weak effort at democratization was again aborted just four years after the military withdrew; but not before Ojukwu was pardoned and returned to the country to join the Northern-dominated ruling party, NPN. In a way, it was his own personal re-integration with his fatherland, and the beginning of his involvement with a political process which had little room for former tribal heroes. Another 15 years would be spent by Nigerians under military governments, during which corruption grew while politicians shrank in stature and influence in the hands of the military. Ojukwu took his place as a has-been, in a system in which the military decided who became billionaires, and who were friends or enemies. He was part of the Nigerian older generation which witnessed the West move into virtual rebellion after Abiola’s election was aborted; and NADECO and OPC must have  reminded him of the feelings of injustice following the May and November killings of Easterners in 1966. He had a stint as a Head of a militia he formed, and he was never too far from other Igbo tribal groups such as Ndi-Igbo.

The political contraption which produced a Yoruba President in 1999 specifically as a response to the reaction of the West following Abiola’s sojourn had little room for Ojukwu. Unable to win elections or find a prominent national position in a major party, he retreated into his tribal enclave and floated a political party that is almost purely Igbo. This gave him a political platform and an asset, but reinforced him as a leader good enough only for the Igbo people. But he was in good company here. The ANPP and AD were virtual tribal parties. The CPC which emerged out of the shadows of the ANPP and the fragmenting fortunes of the PDP in the north is limited to the far north. The former AD is an uncanny reincarnation of the old Action Group, so the Yoruba people, like many Igbo people, have scurried back into tribal holes. The South South is holding on to the PDP as its strongest base, and the party is increasingly looking like a south south people’s party. The north is divided between an ethnic and religious minority which will go anywhere other than where the majority goes, and a majority which has lost real power quite possibly for the first time in its history.

The pervasive and decisive influence of ethnic politics which indirectly produced Ojukwu is today, even more pronounced. The most consistent clamor for the Igbo in Nigeria is to be accorded full rights and dignity, for a people who must live substantially outside Igboland. This demand is being checkmated by a Yoruba mentality which sees survival in Nigeria in terms of locking up its doors to the rest of Nigeria, or more specifically, competition. The demand is being resisted by a rising mentality in much of the south south which resents the historic subordination of its people under Igbos, and which wants to keep Igbos outside its newly-found assertive mentality and huge resources. The demand is being frustrated by policies which deny and deprive Igbos full rights and privilege in many parts of Nigeria where they live; in laws and other measures which limit their rights and freedoms as citizens; and in periodic crises which target Igbo property and lives even when they are not part of the problem.

There is much in the life history of Ojukwu which is still a major problem in Nigeria. In the early 1960s the Tiv riots and other isolated uprisings showed that the north is vulnerable to crises around tongue and faith. Today, much of the christain north has a severely stressed relationship with Muslim north: and the unending conflicts in Plateau, Bauchi and Kaduna States may just be the modern manifestation of these old conflicts. The West went into virtual rebellion in the 1990s to protest what it saw as the denial of a Yoruba man’s legitimate mandate to govern. Today, almost the entire West is a monolithic political conclave, and there is increasing tendency to think that it can be structured into as a future State. The south south has received a bountiful reward for its insurgency around natural resources; and whole communities have now acquired new mentalities and resources to protect more territory for tribes. The far north is split between a part which is yet to come to grips with the loss of political control of the centre; and an emerging insurgency in the name of a non-secular State. On the whole, the nation is made up of tribes and ethnic group as building blocks, and not citizens with equal rights. The nation is a captive of a vision-less leadership which reinforces its sources of weakness of the nation.

Historians will wonder what Ojukwu would have thought, in his last days, of the nation he served, then fought, then served again as a politician with a mixed past. But in his life, history will remind Nigerians of the pitfalls of inept leadership and crass opportunism. Much of the past captured in the life and times of Ojukwu are very much part of the present in Nigeria. This is tragic for a nation which should have learnt many lessons about the dangers of mismanaging its plurality and diversity. If Nigerians could take a step back and critically examine the life of Dim Ojukwu, they may yet learn why some people think our nation will not survive the next five years as a united country. And perhaps we may produce the type of leadership that will be sure that we do.

BOKO HARAM: WHEN A DOG SNIFFS A SHOE

          A number of comments are being made from people who have an influence on public opinion which seek to lay the entire blame for the emergence and increasing threat of Boko Haram on northern leaders. Some of these comments are so ridiculous that they can safely be dismissed as rantings of unstable and idle people with an eye for a media which has replaced professionalism with reckless sensationalism. But quite a few of the comments come from persons who wield influence and have some relationship with the highest levels of the nation’s leadership. These comments pose additional dangers for Nigerians and Nigeria; but it will worsen the danger they pose if they are allowed to achieve their objectives. Either they are part of an official thinking which is being put forward to prepare an actual and sustainable position and strategy of the administration towards the Boko Haram insurgency, or they represent efforts to push the administration towards that direction.

        The range of comments, suggestions and the conjectures which link the Boko Haram with northern political interests, or which hint at the failure of northern leaders to nip it in the bud is extensive. Most people will dismiss the rantings of Mrs. Sarah Jibril as a comical attempt to earn her huge pay as Special Adviser to the President on Ethics, when she says northern leaders are responsible for the emergence and growth of Boko Haram. Comments from people like Sarah Jubril should bother no one; and if she is speaking for the administration, then she represents its worst mouthpiece. But comments from the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Pastor Oritsejafor to the effect that northern leaders are not doing enough to control and eliminate the Boko Haram insurgency should be taken seriously. Granted, the CAN President has lost much of his following and influence over rank and file Nigerian Christians over his serial gaffes, but he is still an influential figure in the current political disposition. The CAN President claims that leaders from the South South zone played an active role in bringing the dangerous militancy in the region to an end by engaging the militants directly and appealing to them to lay down their arms. He says northern leaders should do the same with Boko Haram insurgents. Presumably if they are unable to do this, the only conclusion will be that they support it. There have been other comments which suggest that northern leaders resent their inability to install Sharia in the north; or their loss of political power, and have created Boko Haram to provide a violent alternative to achieve these goals. Since the arrest and arraignment of a senator on suspicion of collaborating with members of the sect, and the widely-reported comments of a suspect which links prominent politicians from the north east with Boko Haram, there have been many insinuations and explicit comments, including some from official quarters, that Boko Haram is a political creation of the north, and can be controlled only by the north. The emphatic repudiation of the linkages by spokesmen of the movement does not appear to have changed minds among those who are bent on visiting the entire Boko Haram phenomenon on the scheming or failures of northern leaders.

        The dangers in the attempts to identify the Boko Haram insurgency as a northern issue, and to hold its leaders responsible for it, are many. One danger is that the view will inform the adoption of the wrong strategy to deal with the problem. Resources and energy will be directed at chasing politicians and the clergy, while the problem grows. Another danger is that the fight against a national threat will become politicized and pitch sections of the country against each other. While this may be the actual goals of some of the commentators, they fail to realize that no part of the country is safe from the emergence and spread of violence around political issues; or beyond the reach of sectional militants. The NADECO and OPC uprising following the abortion of the 1992 elections in the southwest complete with tribal warlords and mass murder of northerners is firmly etched in Nigerian history. Similarly, the militancy and the thinly-veiled criminality in the south south which has ebbed at a huge cost to the nation affected every Nigerian. Thirdly, a strategy which seeks to blame northern leaders for responsibility or failure with regards to Boko Haram will merely feed the insurgency. It will burn the bridges which the administration may need to build towards a resolution. It will make most northern leaders multiple victims, because they are neither safe from Boko Haram nor the government. It will create new enemies for an administration which needs all the support it can get from politicians, traditional rulers and the clergy, and the public in its fight against the insurgency. Above all, it may give the administration a false sense of accomplishment when it thinks it has identified the enemy; when it is far from doing that.  

        The north should vigorously fight this attempt to isolate it and blame it for a problem which has made it a worse victim than all other parts of the country. Many Nigerians conveniently choose to forget that it was the directive of a northerner, the late President Umaru Musa ‘YarAdua against the Boko Haram group that set in motion the most decisive chain of events leading to its current disposition. The vast majority of the hundreds of lives lost in clashes, attacks, bombings and shootings are northern. The economy and society of Borno State and environs have been devastated. Funds which should go into building schools and hospitals, or roads and water plants are now used to pay security personnel in a conflict which shows no sign of abetting. The political and security decisions and responses to the Boko Haram insurgency were made by Abuja, not by northern politicians. Some of those decisions and responses appear to have fuelled the growth and sophistication of the insurgency, and the north today pays a much higher price for them than anyone.

        Northern leaders must be acutely embarrassed by their impotence to influence this escalating threat. Traditional rulers have little or no influence over religious matters anymore. In fact, in most cases, they are specifically targeted as foes by increasingly militant sects. The clergy is fractured and substantially compromised by its intimate relationship with partisan politics. It has lost its pre-eminent position to set standards of conduct or call followers to order. Northern politicians have shrunk in political size and influence, and those among them with real power, the Governors, are afraid to offer any opinion towards a resolution, outside their cosy circle of psycophants. There are no northern leaders above these shackled groups, and the vacuum is being taken up by an insurgency which sees everyone as a virtual enemy.

        Those who hold northern leaders responsible for failure to control and eliminate the Boko Haram insurgency may have sinister motives of isolating the north further; as well as creating an excuse for the administration’s inability so far to get a grip on the Boko Haram insurgency. Perhaps they recognize the weakness of the north better than even northerners do; and they know that dangerous insinuations and outright provocation will not even be responded to. Or they may be laying the foundations of a potentially self-defeating strategy which leaves the problem of Boko Haram pretty much to the north, its perceived creator. If President Jonathan does not share this perspective, he should assure the nation that the Boko Haram insurgency is a national issue which will be tackled by the nation as one. Otherwise, the north may begin to think it is even more dangerously exposed than it is.  Because, as a Hausa proverb goes, when a dog sniffs at a shoe, it is very likely to take it away.



THE WAR AGAINST CORRUPTION: NO END IN SIGHT.

          Farida Waziri, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was sacked by President Jonathan on Wednesday, 23^rd November. The Director of Operations under her, and an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahim Lamurde was appointed in acting capacity in her place. Reports say Mrs Farida Waziri received news of her removal which took immediate effect on television while she was in her office working. It is possible that the humiliation was intended to accompany her sack, which left a trail of suspicions and speculations behind it. The statement by the President’s spokesman simply said she has been relieved of her appointment.

Mrs Farida Waziri is the second chairman of the EFCC. The first chairman was Malam Nuhu Ribadu, who was also removed in equally dramatic fashion almost four years ago. The new acting chairman was an officer under Ribadu. When Ribadu was removed and banished to the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (N.I.P.S.S), Kuru, Lamurde acted for him. He initially paid a price for his service under Ribadu, when he was also posted out of the E.F.C.C. and banished to a hazardous assignment in Ningi. A few months later, he was recalled to his old post as Director of Operations. He has been, for most of her tenure as chairman and chief executive officer of the EFCC, a key member of her team, and therefore will share her achievements and failures. In many ways therefore, Mr Lamurde is a veteran of the turbulent nature of the job of chasing corruption in Nigeria. His experiences and those of his predecessor will be important in the manner he approaches his job, and the fight against corruption will be more or less successful depending on the degree to which he enjoys the support of the President and other interests.

Mrs Waziri’s sack has been on the cards for quite some time. Her skirmishes with the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice over powers of the Commission and its relationship with the Justice Minister were indicators that she was losing her grip on the Presidency. Even though a public reconciliation was engineered, the damage to a relationship which should be solid and self-reinforcing had been done. The lady also had many other problems, almost all of them related to the manner corruption is investigated and prosecuted. Some of those against her said she was too cosy with politically-exposed suspects; a Nigerian term for public office holders suspected of large scale corruption. In this group are the adversaries of these powerful people, many foreign nations who believe they have a major stake in the fight against corruption in Nigeria; and a whole army of civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and professional bodies who lament the failure of anti-corruption agencies to make the slightest impact in Nigeria. She also had formidable enemies in the politically-exposed persons themselves; a government which is ambivalent over the distance it wants to go to fight corruption; a judicial system which is notoriously impervious to reform and stimuli to respond to the need to fight corruption as a national disaster; a media which is vulnerable to influence by the powerful interests she is fighting; and a cynical public opinion which is largely resigned to the belief that the law cannot touch the rich and the powerful. She also had other liabilities which did not help her. Her relationship with the former Minister of Justice, Micheal Aaondoaka; her involvement in the case of the former Governors of Bayelsa, James Ibori and Benue, George Akume; and the circumstances under which Malam Ribadu was hounded out of office all combined to create the impression of a person acting out a script written by some powerful interests. Of recent, the trials of the former Speaker in the House of Representatives and his Deputy have substantially fouled her relationship with the National Assembly. The legislature has seen attempts to amend the law establishing the E.F.C.C which will make Mrs Waziri ineligible to continue to serve. There have also been rumours that the four former Governors of Nassarawa, Gombe, Oyo and Ogun whose prosecution has just commenced, are involved in negotiations with the EFCC to pay their way out of the prosecution. These are the type of rumours her enemies will peddle and use against her with devastating effect.

Given the intimidating array of hostile opposition against her, even Mrs Waziri will not be surprised at her summary removal with just a few months to complete her term of four years. The fight against corruption in Nigeria is a very dangerous enterprise, and it will not help those in the frontline if they have skeletons in their cupboards. Now that Mr Lamurde is the new head of the E.F.C.C, he will have a very rich history to draw from, and many lessons to use effectively to avoid the pitfalls which consumed Ribadu and Waziri. He should know by now that politics and large-scale corruption in Nigeria are infinitely connected. Without corruption in high places, our political system and electoral process will be infinitely better. Without the type of political system we operate, our level of corruption will be well within the standards of a civilized people with a value system which places premium on honesty and service.  Corruption survives in Nigeria because it has a huge reservoir of support from the political system; and it fights back viciously. Each victory registered by corruption makes those who fight it less eager to take it on. The success of corruption against agencies which fight it is registered in the very few numbers of people accused of corruption who have been successfully prosecuted.

It does our own system little credit that the most celebrated conviction of a politically-exposed person was facilitated by British police and courts, and not by Nigerian institutions such as the E.F.C.C. Perhaps Mrs Waziri was right when she said our judicial system effectively frustrates the successful prosecution of corruption cases, but those who should reform it may not be too eager to see expedited trials. Perhaps the sheer scale of corruption provides the billions which compromise investigations, prosecutions and the entire processes which should show that corrupt people can be exposed, tried and convicted. Again, those who should reform the process to make it more transparent and efficient may have their reservations against a process which may end up prosecuting and convicting them. The fight against corruption cannot be won by the people who head our anti-corruption agencies; but by leaders who commit totally and openly to a robust and reformed process which will make it easier to prosecute and commit corrupt people.

There is a very important matter that needs to be settled by the President who has just removed Mrs Waziri. This is the matter of letting Nigerians know why she was removed. If she committed an illegal transgression, she should be made to face the law. If she has committed no offence, but has only fallen below the expectations of Mr President, the nation also needs to know. Mr Lamurde also needs to know why his former boss is being removed. He will need the information to adjust to the expectations of his office; and to know whether he will be judged by those who appointed him purely on the basis of his ability to fight corruption, or on the basis of his capacity to meet the needs of many masters who will not want him to fight corruption.

WHEN PRESIDENT JONATHAN BITES

          Eight PDP Governors from all parts of the country made another unsuccessful effort yesterday to beg President Jonathan to let the Governor of his home State, Timipre Sylva to run on the PDP platform in the forthcoming State election. The ticket for the PDP’s candidature has already been given to the person widely perceived as the President’s man. This did not stop the Governors from making an attempt to plead with the President to forgive their colleague, whom they towed to the Villa as well, so that the result of the heavily-guarded Primaries of the party can be overturned by him. The effort to get the President to reverse the result of the Primaries was also made in spite of a whole stack of court cases, restraining orders and injunctions, some of which are being initiated by the Governor himself. 

          The visit of the Governors to the President on an issue he has made personal will speak volumes of the nature of the democratic process under the PDP administration; and the President’s character and personal disposition to matters which affect his interests. Coming only one day after President Jonathan publicly commended his party for its stand against Governor Sylva and the conduct against the Primary, the visit by the Governors should have been discouraged by the President in the first place. To have allowed them to visit him, complete with the embattled Governor Sylva in tow suggests that they believe the President is responsible for the Governor’s travails, and has the power to direct that he is allowed to run. The impression created by the visit of the Governors is that the entire Bayelsa affair is centred around the personal preferences of the President; who, we now have to assume, single-handedly decided who is to fly the party’s flag. Even those charitable enough to say that President Jonathan met with the Governors out of respect, and only to enable him explain his position, will concede that the Governors’ apparent conviction that they can get the President to change his mind says a lot about their democratic credentials. Eight PDP Governors choose to visit the President days after a Party Primary has produced a candidate, to ask him to allow a Governor who has sued his Party over his disqualification should tell Nigerians much about the state of intra-party affairs in the PDP. It will also say much about their respect for the opinion of Nigerians, as well as their perception of a President who has a very sensitive role to play in terms of the development or subversion of our democratic processes.

          The decision of the Bayelsa PDP to stop Governor Sylva from contesting on its platform will be seen as the script written in Abuja, no matter what the President and the party’s national headquarters do.  The most visible element in this untidy process is the person and office of the President himself. Ironically, it is also the one time when President Jonathan shows the nation that he can bark and bite. His determination to prevent the Governor from his home State from running for a second term has always been a public issue. Speculations behind this have hinted at threats made by the Governor against the President and his wife; or the existence of records of mismanagement and corruption; or massive unpopularity which is likely to cost the party the office if the Governor is allowed to run. Whatever the reasons behind the desperation of Abuja to prevent a Sylva re-run, the battle on both sides have involved just about every element of power and influence. Elders, legislators, local party enforcers, lawyers, courts and security agents have all been drawn into the fray. In the end, quite possibly the most heavily-protected State party primary was held after a number of aspirants were disqualified, at the end of which the President’s man emerged victorious. The period until the elections themselves will be marked by heightened tension and continuing manoeuvres in the courts. The tiny State of Bayelsa will be filled to the brim with soldiers and policemen and sundry security officials. It is possible that violence will play a major role in the build up to, and the conduct of the elections. In the end, the people who will cast their votes may or may not get a Governor they voted for; but the democratic process has already been severely injured by the involvement of Abuja in Bayelsa. Whoever flies the PDP flag is also likely to be declared winner at the end of the elections, and the circle of desperation to contest on PDP platforms will continue.

          President Jonathan showed his teeth either in his determination to exclude Sylva, or in his resistance to pressures to let him run against local interests. There will be many Nigerians who would wish that he will be as resolute and steadfast in other areas of governance. For instance, there is a gaping hole in the response of the government to many issues relating to national security. The nation wants to see a determined response which both uses the instruments of coercion like soldiers and policemen, and the subtle but effective use of political intelligence and flexible and informed engagement tactics which will bring an end to the threats of Boko Haram, or the constant threats of communal violence in Plateau and Kaduna States. The nation wants to see a President determined to bring transparency around the petroleum sector. They want to see a determined and informed strategy to reduce the cost of governance; an end to waste and corruption; and a visionary perspective on the future of the Nigerian State. Young Nigerians want to see some glimmer of hope that they can live productive lives; and older Nigerians want to see a return to a nation in which they do not spend everyday looking over their shoulders for bombs or robbers. All Nigerians want bold polices to reduce poverty and improve social and economic infrastructure; and we all want to see real efforts made towards improving the limitations of our political system and electoral process, so that 2015 will not continue to be a nightmare.

          President Jonathan showed Nigerians that he can bite, but over the wrong issue. In point fact, he should have been advised not to entertain, or make public, the meeting with the PDP Governors who wanted him to reverse the Bayelsa primaries and single-handedly hand over the ticket to Sylva. He has shown that he could prevent Sylva from running; in this respect he emulates the former President Obasanjo, if that suits him. The visit of the Governors merely confirmed that the President’s power to decide who runs on the PDP platform exceeds the powers of the Bayelsa PDP leaders and members; of all the interested parties; of court orders and injunctions. His refusal to change his mind showed that he could both bark and bite. Sadly, he bit the wrong bullet.         

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: THE GRAND ANTI-CLIMAX OR RED HERRING?

DA DA IDO

DITV/ALHERI RADIO, KADUNA

NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

21st November, 2011

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: THE GRAND ANTI-CLIMAX OR RED HERRING?

          President Goodluck Jonathan finally inaugurated a committee which he charged with the task of reviewing some aspects of the constitution. The committee, made up of eminent and vastly-experienced Nigerians is however to undertake only a review of past efforts at constitutional amendments, and reports of other committees which looked at the Nigerian political system and its relationship with our constitution. In specific terms, the President ordered the committee to stay off issues and areas which are likely to generate much disagreements and debates, or involve the necessity to assembly large groups of people in order to achieve consensus. Instead, the committee, headed by no less a chairman than the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Alfa Belgore is to review and advice on what the President referred to as settled issues. Settled issues, according to the President, are areas where previous committees or fora have deliberated on, and had made extensive recommendations on, and around which there is national consensus. These will include recommendations on national security; human rights and social security; people’s charter and national obligations; models and structure of government; public service, power sharing and local government reforms and the economy. Other areas where President says there are firm agreement include proposals for judicial and legal reforms, constitutional amendments relating to the public service, anti-corruption, State-Local Government Joint Account, traditional institutions and cultural reforms, and issues around civil society, labour and trade unions, and the media.   

          The committee is therefore basically limited to reviewing reports and recommendations made earlier. Presumably, the President will then use its report to decide which of the settled issues and safe areas he wishes to present to the legislature and the nation for constitutional amendments. The committee will not engage in fresh assessment of issues and areas which need amendment. It will not be expected to raise issues outside those prescribed by the President’s definition of settled issues, or issues around there is wide consensus. It will not attempt to break new grounds, or capture the national or sub-national mood around specific issues which a constitutional amendment should address. In short the committee will not do anything beyond what an administrative committee in the public service will do, which is to compile a summary of observations and recommendations from 1996 to date which have not been implemented.    

Predictably, the President’s initiative has met with a barrage of criticisms, particularly from people who had looked forward to an exercise which will involve a substantial alteration of the nature of the Nigerian federal system and some obvious structural defects and weaknesses which the operation of the constitution since 1999 have thrown up. Some prominent citizens and constitutional experts such as Professor Itse Sagay dismissed Jonathan’s review committee as second best and a very weak option. The Professor speaks for a large body of opinion which believes that only a constitutional conference involving all of Nigeria’s ethnic groups will discuss fundamental issues affecting their co-existence. In spite of Mr President’s order to the Committee to avoid contentious issues, Professor Sagay advises it to look into political and fiscal federalism, or the manner the federating units relate and how they contribute to, and share the nation’s resources. A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Chief Olisa Agbakoba also says that Jonathan’s approach is not far enough, although any move to amend the constitution is welcome. Mr Ayo Opadokun of the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER) says the committee is a mere window dressing and a misplaced misadventure which is made up of recycled Nigerians who had previously participated in previous futile efforts at reviewing the constitution. He too wants to see a constitutional conference which should involve all of Nigerians ethnic nationalities before it becomes legitimate.

There will be many other Nigerians who will be disappointed by what will appear to be a huge anti-climax in the manner President Jonathan is approaching the review exercise. Given the fact that it was the President himself who ignited the old fire around the national debate over the suitability and workability of our constitution with this tenure review idea, the nation will now draw its own conclusion over his response to the interest he triggered. As soon as the President mooted the idea that he intended to present proposals to the national assembly to seek for an amendment to provide for single, seven-year term for the President the endemic national cynicism around constitutional reviews was aroused. Many Nigerians thought the President was attempting to confer certain advantages on himself. He denied this, of course, and as evidence of his sincerity, he reeled out other issues which he said would also be forwarded to the national assembly for review.  Immediately old tribal warlords dusted up old agendas for the expected constitutional review. New issues came up, many of them informed by recent political developments which are shaping perspectives about the nature and future of the Nigerian State. The national assembly set up its own constitutional review committee in anticipation of the President’s initiative; and as part of its perennial and expensive efforts at amendments of the constitution. Other bodies such as the Nigeria Bar Association also set up their own committees. It is safe to assume that there are currently many groups all over Nigeria looking into issues, problems and agendas which they want to push during the review exercise.

The President’s hamstrung review committee is therefore likely to be interpreted largely in the negative. It will be seen as a safe but ineffective approach to put something on the table for a nation whose appetite for some extensive review of the constitution has been whetted. A review in the limited manner President Jonathan wants will amount to very little. It will represent a listing of issues which the legislature may want to consider, but will not ruffle any feathers. It will not take up contentious issues such as the nature of the federal state, state creation, fiscal federalism, state-local government relations, and electoral reforms.

In the way President Jonathan plans to undertake this exercise, nothing much is likely to come out of it. The national assembly’s exercise may likely to take up some or all of these issues in one way or the other. But without a President wholly committed to a real and genuine constitutional reform, even this initiative will amount to nothing.

Another group of Nigerians will suspect that the committee is a red herring, an attempt to divert attention and achieve goals other than those made public. They will be excused for thinking along these lines one, because this committee will really do little; and two, because the Obasanjo experience is still haunting the nation. The President himself says he is still interested in pushing through the tenure extension amendment. There may be other intentions behind this exercise which are not yet known.

The calibre and integrity of the people assembled by President Jonathan are likely to be offended by the task assigned to them, if they had expected that they will be involved in some meaningful exercise. They could advise President Jonathan to ensure that their mandate is genuine and complete, or they could examine how they can both do the job and keep their personal integrity intact. Either way, Nigerians will look up to them not to lend themselves to a formalised deception or a fruitless exercise.      

LONGER IN THE DARK

DA DA IDO

DITV/ALHERI RADIO, KADUNA

NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

17^TH November, 2011

LONGER IN THE DARK

          Workers of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria on Tuesday 15^th of November shut down power supply to most parts of the country, and have vowed not to restore it until a number of demands are met. One demand is that all outstanding labour issues, including unpaid dues, must be paid by the government. Another is that military personnel at the Company’s facilities should be withdrawn. A third is for wage increase. All three demands are bits and pieces of the main grievance of the workers, which is that the federal government plans to push ahead and conclude the planned privatisation of the company. The nation is likely to stay in the dark a bit longer than it is used to, as government and the workers haggle over these issues. Most Nigerians will not notice the shutdown because they have been effectively shut out of the services of the Power Holding Company for a long time, or because they only receive it on rare occasions.

          The dispute over the privatisation of the power sector is likely to assume the same character as the controversy over the planned removal of subsidy from petroleum products, because the issues are important to the livelihood of Nigerians, and the nation’s economy. On both issues, government is not engaging the major stakeholders, which is the public, in a debate or discussion on merits of the reforms. The complex, and long drawn-out debates over the need to privatize key elements of power generation and distribution has been limited to the sector’s unions and the government. Both sides have stuck to their positions while the billions being invested to improve the electricity energy source in the country show no result. Perhaps now that the unions are digging in for a long fight, and government appears to be on the verge of involving substantial Private capital participation in the sector, Nigerians may be informed over what the issues at stake are.

          At this stage, the bone of contention appears to be the determination of the federal government to privatise power distribution. The unions say where private sector funding and managerial capacities are needed is in the area of power generation. They argue that privatisation of distribution will affect their jobs and add little to the capacities available to the nation. Private companies will simply buy the little power being generated and sell it at great cost to Nigerians. There will be little difference between that and what the PHCN workers are doing.

          Government’s position is that private sector’s involvement will improve efficiency in distribution and reduce corruption and waste which exists around the present system. Government will argue that when all the investments made in the past into improving generation come on-stream, the private sector will distribute it better and more efficiently, even if at higher cost. Private sector will also be expected to improve distribution infrastructure, and streamline consumer services to make them more responsive to market forces. Competition between private sector distributors, and, in the longer term, generators, will give Nigerian consumers choices and value.

          The labour unions do not trust government to push private sector funding into power generation in the near future. They suspect that there are plans to hand over strategic national assets in power distribution infrastructure to private sector investors, which are soft options. They suspect that many of the private sector companies eyeing the power sector will undertake massive changes which will threaten most of their jobs. They want private sector remuneration now, as insurance that they will not be thrown out by the new investors, or short-changed by them. If they have their way, the power sector unions will block any privatisation of the distribution sector until private capital has become heavily involved in generation.

          This dispute over the possible role of private interest in the power sector will complicate the federal government’s campaign to remove subsidy from petroleum products. Already Nigerians are paying higher charges for electricity, and they have learnt to live with a billing system which is neither rational nor fair. Government says rates will go up again next year, and part of the reason may be to make the sector more attractive to particularly foreign investors. Public outcry is likely to be louder when people continue to pay more for alternative sources of energy from a market where monopolies rule, such as diesel and kerosene.

          The public is helpless to stop workers of the PHCN walking off whenever they have a grievance. If the labour laws have any meaning in the country, the public will be spared the pairs of these skirmishes around an important issue. The laws relating to disputes and their resolutions will apply, and government and the unions will negotiate a resolution. As it stands, the workers are not even technically on strike, yet half the nation is blacked out. Tomorrow, the other half could be in the dark. And nothing will happen.

          The federal government needs to come clean and explain to Nigerians what its plans are for the power sector. If it intends to introduce far-reaching reforms, it should explain what they involve and their implications for consumers. It will have a difficult task explaining why the huge investments in the power generation sector have not radically improved the quantum of power available to the nation. It will also need good reasons to explain why investors want to get involved in distribution at this stage, and not generation. The unions, on the other hand, also need to know how low they rank in the perception of Nigerians. Very few Nigerians will have any sympathy or goodwill for the PHCN staff. If they have issues which go beyond their pockets, and which have major implication for the nation’s economy, they need to put them forward in ways that do not just keep Nigerians more in the dark. Because at this stage, most Nigerians are really in the dark over what this quarrel is about.         

           

UNIVERSITY PLACES: FEW CHEERS, MANY TEARS

DA DA IDO

DITV/ALHERI RADIO, KADUNA

NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

16^TH November, 2011

UNIVERSITY PLACES: FEW CHEERS, MANY TEARS

          Many young Nigerians who sat for the University Matriculation Examinations are finding out if they have been offered admission in our universities and polytechnics. If they have secured places, they would be among the less than 10% of all those who have qualified to actually secure places. The 90% who sat the Senior Secondary Schools Examinations (S.S.C.E), N.E.C.O, G.C.Es, N.C.Es or Diplomas all to get places in the Universities will not get them. Many of those who would have qualified for places in our universities will not attend a Nigerian university. They will attend a university in a foreign country, at great cost to their parents or guardians or governments. Some will go to Ghana in their tens of thousands; or South Africa, or Malaysia, or the United Kingdom, or any of more than a dozen countries who are attracting hundreds of thousands of young Nigerians who pay astronomical fees to study there. The vast majority who will neither get places in Nigerian universities nor afford foreign ones may try again next year, or they may give up and try in any number of tertiary institutions, where the competition is just as fierce. Or they will just melt into the army of unemployed youth who are bitter at their country.

          Some of those who would have been offered admissions may have genuinely deserved their places, but majority of them would have been helped by a strong push from people with influence or money. Brilliant performance just isn’t enough in majority of the cases who make it. The limited number of places in relation to demand is only one explanation for this. Even when highly qualified candidates are considered, places may go to those who do worse than them because the system is severely compromised. The Nigerian student must be among the most examined in the world. At the end of secondary school, students sit S.S.C.E, U.M.E, N.E.C.O, G.C.E and Post-UME, all in a bid to secure enough scores to enter universities or polytechnics. Even very good performances in these examinations, all of which also cost a lot of money, is no guarantee that a student will be assessed only on that performance. The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) could recommend a student to a university for admission, but the law gives universities power to admit. Universities do not trust JAMB’s examinations, so they set up their own examinations to verify the authenticity of JAMB’s standards. They make a lot of money from these examinations, which they then use as their own standards to decide who gets in. So the pressure moves from JAMB which shortlists and recommend candidates who meet cut-off points, to universities who conduct post-UME examinations, and who have to squeeze in a very limited number of students. The system is therefore prone to manipulation and subject to many influences. You have first, second and third admission lists; then V-C’s list, then Abuja’s lists in addition to the strong internal pressures from lecturers and other staff, Heads of Departments, Deans and Council members.

          The good candidate who has neither influence nor money will find it very difficult to squeeze through these many hindrances. Those who may make it through may include many who sat their examinations at miracle centres which guarantee excellent results for considerable sums of money which many parents willingly and knowingly pay. These miracle candidates will find places in universities without rigorous screening processes; or where places are sold outrightly. They may find many places available in private universities where premium is placed on the ability to pay extremely high fees, rather than entrance requirements. They may, or may not survive the demanding life of undergraduate studies, depending again on the moral and ethical environments in which they study. If they came in fraudulently, or with undeserved push, they will live by this fraud or subversion of standards by any means.

          Much of the Nigerian elite have long given up on the Nigerian university system. Long before other citizens knew it, they realized that Nigerian universities which gave them world-class education had become casualties of the spreading decay and corruption of our values and institutions. They know that our universities do not teach anything of value; are liable to close for any reason for months on end; and are likely to expose their children to evils such as cults, drugs and cheating around every hurdle. So they send their children out to neighbouring African countries, or to other lands whose value systems often rob the young Nigerians of the value of education they acquire. They spend more money on educating their children than would have been required to rehabilitate and maintain twenty world-class universities in Nigeria. They blame the government for the collapse of the education system; yet they are the government, or the people who run the government; or who make their wealth from the government. The further they and their children move away from the education system, the worse it gets.

          At the end of each 6-year senior secondary school circle, four groups of young Nigerians emerge. The first would graduate from secondary school with nothing. No grades, no skills, no hope, no future. This will be the group that attended government schools with little or no teaching. The second group will scrape and beg its way into the lower rungs of our tertiary system with poor grades, and they will graduate from there with barely a difference from when they entered. They may join the ranks of the unemployed or unemployable. If they do get employed, they will contribute to the alarming decline in all standards of our national life. A third group will be young Nigerians who studied hard, got good grades, but lack the influence or money to find places in universities or polytechnics.  They may see many of their friends and peers who performed worse than them secure places. They will be bitter, and each will be a living testimony that this nation cannot honour the most basic undertaking to its young and future leaders; which is that it will reward hard work and honesty. The final group will be made up of those who find places in universities and polytechnics because they deserve them; and those who buy them or use other influences to get them. This group will also include many children of the wealthy and the privileged who will not study in Nigerian universities; who will travel out and acquire quality education at great cost to their parents;  and who will come back and live in a nation declining literally by the day because it has abandoned the education of its young, and the development of its human capital.

          The few young Nigerians among millions who will find places in universities and other tertiary institutions will be the lucky ones. Many among them would not be there if standards and guidelines for admission are strictly followed. They will meet other students who are studying without certainty that their degrees will mean much in a shrinking economy; and who are studying in an environment which is more liable to corrupt their morality than if they stayed at home. The crises around admissions into our institutions of higher learning are only the tip of the iceberg in a sector which has very little value in terms of the nation’s capacity to develop. If Nigerians want to stop the descent into anarchy and irrelevance, our leadership must take some radical steps to rebuild our education system. A useful starting point will be for leaders to accept not to send their children or wards to foreign or private schools so long as they hold position of leadership.               

WHEN CHINUA ACHEBE AND NIGERIA FALL APART

DA DA IDO

DITV/ALHERI RADIO, KADUNA

NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

15^TH November, 2011

WHEN CHINUA ACHEBE AND NIGERIA FALL APART

          The celebrated Nigerian writer, Chinua Achebe turned down, for the second time, the award of the national honour of the Commander of the Federal Republic (CFR), the nation’s third highest honour. As he did on the first occasion in 2004, the elderly Nigerian who has now lived in the United States for a very long time said he would not accept the offer because the political situation in his home State of Anambra left much to be desired. But he also complained over the lack of good schools, roads, hospitals, water, insecurity of life and property as well as the poor economy in Nigeria. He says he is rejecting the offer again, because the reasons for his rejection in the first instance have not been addressed. So Mr. Achebe, who has been honoured by many other countries, was conspicuously missing as 364 people were honoured by President Goodluck Jonathan on Monday 14^th November.

          President Jonathan was not happy over the rejection, of course. He must have hoped to tap into some credible, even if foreign-based Nigerian’s goodwill when he decided to confer the national honour on Mr Achebe. It is also obvious that no one bothered to find out from the elderly writer whether he will accept the honour this time. So President Jonathan’s spokesman released a statement saying that the President is disappointed that his offer was turned down by the globally-acclaimed Nigerian. Mr Abati says the rejection of the honour shows clearly that Mr Achebe is not in tune with the reality of Nigerian’s current political situation. He says President Jonathan is particularly surprised that Mr. Achebe will claim that Nigeria has not changed since 2004, when electoral reforms have produced the most credible elections in Nigeria in recent years. He said Mr. Achebe obviously has been misinformed over the true state of affairs; because he should know that the Jonathan administration is moving the country in the right direction, and therefore needs the support and encouragement of all its citizens. Mr Abati says the President hopes that Mr. Achebe will visit home soon to see the progress being made by his administration.

          Perhaps Mr. Achebe will visit Nigeria soon; but it is doubtful if he will come to see the radical changes which have occurred at the political level and in the quality of social and economic infrastructure in Nigeria. Chances are, he is quite informed about the state of affairs of his country. If he does not come, it may have something to do with the fact that his reasons for rejecting the offer may be reinforced by what he will see and experience. Two elections have been held since he spurned the honour in 2004. The first election in 2007 was largely a stage-managed affair during which the few leaders of the ruling party, particularly Olusegun Obasanjo, literally handpicked his successors. The election then was described as the worst in world history, and Anambra State reflected all the turbulence associated with that election. The four years between 2007 and 2011 were largely wasted by a President who had no physical capacity to govern, and a deputy who succeeded him wearing only one of his shoes. The nation limped to the 2011 elections which polarised the nation along dangerous fault lines from which it has not recovered. The elections exposed a nation still grappling to come to terms with its basic characteristics and complexities. The electoral process cannot tackle the fundamental challenges thrown up by the elections; and the administration it produced does not appear to have the will and the capacity to tackle them.

          If Mr Achebe were to come to Nigeria today, he will meet a nation under more threats than it has ever been since the civil war. If he lands in Abuja, he will get the distinct impression that he is in the frontline of a country at war, where barricades, checkpoints and searches are part of the daily lives of citizens. He might even be frisked by security men because the enemy could be anywhere or anybody. If he lands in Lagos, he will get a first hand impression of the decay of our once glittering capital city. He will also see spirited efforts to protect government offices and other strategic places against the possibility of attack from Boko Haram. While in the country, he will hear about a deadly group called Boko Haram which threatens all and sundry. If he travels by road, he will be lucky if he gets to his destination in one piece, or even alive. He will see schools without roofs, and hospitals without water or light; and security men on our highways who may tempt him to go back to his starting point. If he visits our cities, he will see mansions of the rich and the powerful behind high walls; and just a few streets away, he will see the type of poverty which is unforgivable in a country like Nigeria. He will see many young men and women with no jobs. If he speaks with them, he will hear of a generation with no hope, no future to look forward to, and no respect for their nation or elders who they blame for their lives. If he travels extensively, he will see that Nigerians now have to buy power, water, drugs, security and a future for their children; and those who cannot, live wretched lives. If he speaks to different groups, he will hear talk and language that describes other tribes or faith in the most derogatory manner; and he will hear lively debates over how the nation is heading for a disastrous break-up. He will be advised not to travel to Jos, Kaduna, Bauchi, Yobe, and Borno; in case endemic violence breaks out while he is there. He will be advised not to move too freely in the eastern part of the country because marauding kidnappers may pick him up. He will be cautioned against a tour of south south cities where the intimate links between politics and violence has produced cults, kidnappers and other criminal activities on the streets.

          But Chinua Achebe should come to Nigeria, and he is wrong to have refused to accept the national honour given to him twice. He should come not because Mr Abati says Nigeria is better today than it was in 2004, because it is not. He should come because he has a duty and an obligation to do more than stay in the comfort of his home in the US and condemn his country. The honour he turned down is a token of the esteem and honour with which Nigerians hold him; not just a piece of metal from Obasanjo or Jonathan. In turning it down, he has done a tremendous disservice to his standing in the eyes of Nigerians. Most Nigerians share Mr Achebe’s disappointment that this country has not lived up to their expectations. But most will also expect him to do more than just condemn it. He is one of the most distinguished elders of this nation. If he chooses to live in the US, even given his understandable medical condition, he will not generate the type of rapport with Nigerians that he desires. If he accepts the symbolic honour from the Nigerian people, he acquires greater moral strength to demand that our leaders improve the way the country is run. But if he limits his grievance to the leaders by symbolically slapping them in the face, they will in turn just ignore him.

People like Chinua Achebe are a major asset for the Nigerian people. They need to be active in support of improving the democratic process and the development of good governance. Things have clearly fallen apart between him and Nigerian leaders. But he will not be of much value to his Nigerian roots and standing if he merely turns his back against his country. The trouble with Nigeria is that all too often those who should be active in building it tend to just criticise how badly it is being built.  

NATIONAL SECURITY: CAN WE PANIC NOW?

DA DA IDO

DITV/ALHERI RADIO, KADUNA

NEWS ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

14^TH November, 2011

NATIONAL SECURITY: CAN WE PANIC NOW?

          The Ministers of Defence and Information granted interviews recently which are revealing in term of the thinking of the Federal Government regarding the escalating threats to national security. The Minister of Defence, Dr Bello Halliru Mohammed spoke to the BBC, during which he admitted that the recent attacks by the Yusifiyya movement, otherwise known as Boko Haram in Borno and Yobe States took the security agencies by surprise. He also said that government had successfully stopped attacks in Abuja, Suleja and its environs. He emphasised the resolve of the Federal Government to prevent attacks and death of citizens from activities of Boko Haram militants and the Joint Task Force. The strategy of government, he says, is to contain the problem in and around Maiduguri, and to seek for solutions for it, where it originates. He also said that the federal government is looking at all reports on recent or past incidents of violence in the country, and will implement their recommendations. He also referred to other crises in Jos and Kaduna, and amazingly, could not remember the name of Kafanchan, so he referred to it as the other town in southern Kaduna State, after mentioning Zango Kataf.

          The Minister of Information also granted an interview to the Daily Trust newspaper, during which he said that no issue has taken up more of the attention of government than the issue of insecurity in the country. He said that the fight against terror, which is new to Nigeria, is being taken seriously by government, and there have been operations, deployments and arrests by the security agencies, which he described as among the best in Africa. He regretted what he sees as the tendency of the opposition to take comments and statements of Mr. President out of context on the issue of security, including the statement he made on the need for Nigerians to pray over the state of security in the country.

          Even as the two Ministers spoke, bombs were going off in Bauchi. The old flashpoint of Kafanchan had flared up again, and only the massive deployment of security personnel and the physical relocation of the State Commissioner of Police to the beleaguered town and the imposition of a 24 hour curfew prevented another round of bloodbath. The Joint Task Force in Jos had to issue warnings against attempts to cause more trouble in this embattled city. Citizens were receiving text messages not to come to Abuja through Kaduna or travel through Gonin Gora in Kaduna State to Abuja, and the State Government had to undertake a vigorous campaign to assure citizens that the route is safe. Lagos State Government is reported to be taking extraordinary measures to protect key and vulnerable points as a result of rumours of impending attacks from Boko Haram militants. Boko Haram says it will attack Nigerians and the agents of the Nigerian State again and again. And the Federal Government is cordoning off the Central Business District and major government establishments, obviously because it takes the threat very seriously.

When he spoke at the 17^th Nigeria Economic Summit in Abuja a few days ago, President Jonathan referred to the security situation in the country as a temporary setback which will be overcome. The international investor community for which the remark is obviously intended would naturally hope so. The very hotel in which the Summit held was declared a no-go area by the US Government only a few days ago. The international community has a choice to live in Nigeria or leave it; to invest here or take it elsewhere. But Nigerians have no such luxury. They are constantly exposed to bombs and bullets and frightening rumours in a widening conflict in which the insurgents appear to be gaining more ground and confidence. Containment strategy died, if it ever lived that is, when Boko Haram bombed Police Headquarters and the UN Building in Abuja. Its total impotence was demonstrated many times through many attacks, the most recent being the devastating onslaught in Damaturu and Potiskum in Yobe State. So the federal government cannot claim any success in terms of containing the hostility of Boko Haram to Borno State; unless by that, it means that no bombs have gone off in Abuja since the UN Building incident. No better evidence is needed that the federal government feels vulnerable to attacks than the choking presence of road blocks, checkpoints, no-go areas and thousands of security personnel who have turned Abuja into quite possibly the most garrisoned city in the world. A foreign visitor who drives into Abuja will most likely want to go back straight to the airport for his return flight after a drive from the airport to his hotel. Nigeria’s perception of their own physical security declines every time checkpoints increase; or barriers go up; or patrol vehicles zoom past them with sirens blaring.

          In Kaduna State, people are living daily under high tension and actual violence. The problem between the communities in Jama’a Local Government, from which the State Governor comes, appears to have no solution; so every now and then the communities face off, houses, markets and other assets are burnt down, and lives lost. Security personnel are rushed into a small town with the potential to affect relations between communities far beyond Kaduna State. When Jama’a boils over, Jos catches fire. The reversed is also true. Jama’a is the key to peace in Kaduna state. Kaduna State is central to peace in Nigeria. So long as Kafanchan and Jos continue to burn, they will continue to threaten national security. Between the Boko Haram insurgency and the failure to deal with the security threats in Kafanchan, Zonkwa and environs  and Jos, all Nigerians are facing a serious threat to their security.

The assurances by the two Ministers of Defence and Information are not likely to give Nigerians more confidence that they will be safer. Indeed, what comes out of both comments is the disturbing conclusion that the administration has no clue, plans or strategies for dealing with the multi-facetted threat to our national security. Deployments of more troops and erection of checkpoints have been outstripped by the scale and audacity of the attacks from Boko Haram militants. So, clearly, they alone cannot give comfort. Unfortunately, this is all that can be said of the federal government’s strategy against Boko Haram. Reviews of reports of past instances of violence will merely confirm the uniqueness of the threat which Boko Haram poses. Government will not find anything of value there. Its own report written by the Galtimari Committee would have been useful, but a combination of bureaucratic lethargy and insufficient political will have made it virtually useless now.

Nigerians will not tolerate a situation in which insurgency gains more ground and confidence, and the government builds barricades around itself and throws more troops at it. There must be someone, somewhere, who should advise President Jonathan to take serious steps to deal with the Boko Haram insurgency and other threats in Kaduna and Plateau States. The President should be encouraged to reach out to the communities in Borno, Yobe and other parts of the north in a genuine dialogue to establish bridges and communication channels with the insurgents. There are people who can help, but they are ignored or frightened. They are victims of the Boko Haram insurgency like all citizens, but they are also unutilised assets that can be of value to both the State and the insurgents. They must be traced and encouraged to serve a genuine and sincere search for a truce.

President Jonathan should also lean hard on State Governors to show sensitivity to the remote issues which appear to recur in the litany of grievances of the insurgents. State-religion relations, policies towards alleviating poverty, reducing corruption and official high-handedness by government and security agents need to be addressed. The silence of especially northern governors over possible solutions to this widening conflict should not be tolerated. The governors have both power and responsibility to address much of the grievances of the insurgents, and they should be made to be part of finding solutions. The endemic crises in Jos and Kaduna State cannot be allowed to continue to fester. If the governors of the two States are incapable of dealing with these problems, the federal government should engage them constructively and decisively to find solutions. Plateau and Kaduna States represent major sources of threat to our national security; so much so that they cannot be left entirely to their governors alone to handle.

Our security situation is deteriorating rapidly, and there does not appear to be the will and the capacity to address this dangerous slide. Security threats are dealt with as soon as they manifest, and in a manner guaranteed to eliminate them. Ignoring threats makes them more threatening. Applying the wrong responses could compound the threat, and further erode the State’s capacity to adopt other responses. President Jonathan should know that insecurity of our lives represents a major concern for all Nigerians. Their biggest concern, however, is whether he will do more than he is doing about it.