DECODING SENATOR DAVID MARK

“When a dog sniffs at a shoe, you can be certain it will take it away.” Hausa Proverb

At the end of November last year, I posted a comment under the translated Hausa proverb above, when the chorus of demands that northern leaders should find solutions to the insurgency by the JASLIWAJ (aka Boko Haram) was becoming loudly registered. I recall my good friend Bishop Mathew Kukah querying me about its meaning when I sent the comments to him, and I explained that the proverb warns of an impending event, or a suspicion that remote signals would translate into certain events. Within one week in that November, last year, Mrs Sarah Jibril, Special Adviser to President Jonathan and Pastor Oritsejafor, who carries his cross like a sword all the way to the Presidential Villa both demanded that northern leaders (read: northern muslims) should do more to curtail and eliminate the insurgency. The messages in both comments were the same: put out the fire you lit before it consumes the whole nation. It will be useful to recall some parts of those that comment I made in November, 2011:

There have been other comments which suggest that northern leaders resent their inability to install Shari’a in the north; or their loss of political power, and have therefore created Boko Haram to provide a violent alternative to achieve political goals… The emphatic repudiation of the linkages by spokesmen of the insurgency 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 attempts to identify the Boko Haram insurgency as a northern issue, and to hold its leaders responsible for it, are many. One 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 is that the fight against a national threat will become politicisized and pitch sections of the country against each other…. 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 from the government. It will create new enemies for an administration which needs all the support it can get from politicians, traditional rulers, 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, whereas 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…

So, did Senator David Mark even hint at the need for northern leaders to find solutions to the insurgency at a retreat recently? Whatever he said, or said he did not say, the point is that the nation’s number three citizen alluded to the existence of a northern problem for which in plain terms, northern leaders (muslim, clergy, politicians) have full responsibility. Senator David Mark is in good company in this respect. Virtually every one, from the President down, who is not a northern Muslim has pointed accusing fingers at the northern Muslim community. A polite version of this concert is one which suggests that a community which harbours the insurgency at great cost to itself should be more active in the search for solutions. A more popular version is one which suggests that northerners should know members of the insurgency and should do something about them, or continue to pay the price. Either way, the muslim north is accused of anything from complicity, to indifference, to collaboration, or to active support.

The vigorous verbal gymnastics made by Senator David Mark to reduce the damage which he thought his comments may have caused were actually all unnecessary. Long before he joined the chorus, the north of which he now insists he is part and parcel, has been redefined by both the JASLIWAJ insurgency, its effect, and the reactions of Nigerian leaders. The concept of a political north is now fiction. There is a muslim north which is being defined by unceasing violence, damage and destruction which will take it the best part of two decades to mend, assuming that it does begin soon. It is the base and the hostage of an insurgency which has no respect for traditional values, institutions or structures. It is impotent against a movement which strikes it at will; and against a state security apparatus which treats it as the enemy. Its economy is crumbling; its social values are being challenged and eroded by spreading poverty and the impotence of its leaders; its political fortunes have crashed; and it may remain largely peripheral to the political process for many years to come.

Then there is the north of christians and ethnic minorities who live in fear of bombs from people they used to share a political affinity with. This is the north that seeks desperately to re-define itself, and create an identity from the vestiges of deep roots with the far north, and cultivated sentiments of minorities and victims.

If there is any value in what Senator David Mark said, or did not say he said, or said he did not say, it is that northern muslims should wake up to the reality that the rest of Nigeria (including northern christians) see the JASLIWAJ insurgency as essentially a northern muslim issue. Denying responsibility for it, or throwing their hands up in hopelessness will not win them sympathy or respite. The more the insurgency takes root in the muslim north, the higher the price it will pay. If this insurgency lasts for another one year, even at current levels of hostility, the economy of the far north will be completely devastated. Its population will be among the most traumatized in the world, and it is quite conceivable that the insurgency will be stronger than it is today. The far north may as well forget any claim to the right to offer leadership in Nigeria, under whatever guise or arrangement. It will be a spectator in a political system which has room only for tribes and religious faiths, and in which intense competition will expose its frailties and weaknesses. It will reach out in vain to the rest of Nigeria for a national endeavour to find solution to a national problem.

The challenge for the Muslim north is to take a hard look at itself, and pull itself out of its paralyzing stupor. There will be no helping hands from parts of the nation which stand to benefit from the devastation of the north. There will be no help from the leadership which thinks the north should put out its own fire, or be consumed by it. There will be no help from northern christians who see only threats and hostility from an insurgency which treats them as legitimate targets.

Northern leaders with genuine commitment to its interests and fortunes should now step forward and summon the courage to look their own problems in the eye. Berating Senator David Mark or other politicians from the north who distance themselves from its problems merely expose the poverty and impotence of the region. President Jonathan appears to have given substance to the perception that JASLIWAJ is a northern muslim problem by appointing a northern muslim as his National Security Adviser. There is also talk of appointing another northern muslim as Minister of Defence. This may be dangerous tokenism, or it could be an opportunity for the muslim north to engage in some critical self assessment. Either way, the Muslim north needs to know that it is on its own.

FULL CLOSURE

“If you don’t like my opinion of you, you can always improve.” Ashleigh Brilliant.

Among the many vital requirements for good governance, the existence of openness and transparency in the manner Nigerian leaders manage our affairs is the most visible by its absence. An accountable leadership with a capacity to submit to the highest moral standards is absolutely essential as a requirement for the growth and development of our democratic system. In the last two weeks, those among us who had hoped that the massive shocks from revelations of the existence of unprecedented levels of corruption will nudge our leaders towards improving the manner they manage our affairs will be bitterly disappointed by insistence from both the legislature and the President that what they earn or own is none of our business as citizens.

President Jonathan stepped up first, and told a national audience that it is no one’s business what he owns or owes, since he has satisfied the law in declaring his assets. He was responding to questions over why he has not declared his assets publicly, as he did when he was deputy to President Musa Yar’Adua. Using un-presidential words, he said even when he made a public declaration as Vice President, his reason was that Yar’Adua himself had done it. Even then, he said, it was not proper, because it is not public declaration of assets by the President that will change the country. After all, he can always be investigated when he leaves office.

Really, Mr President? Should we assume then that you operate on two different moral standards? One, when you publicly declared your assets because Yar’Adua did so, even though it was improper and not a legal requirement. And the other, when you are fully in charge of the affairs of the nation, and choose not to declare publicly. Were you wrong then, or wrong now?

The issue has little to do with the law, and everything to do with the moral standards by which our President chooses to be judged. The inconsistency between his position as Vice President and now as President is damaging to his standing, and the President should have realized that backtracking from his earlier declaration will do him serious damage. Even if he could have gotten away with this damaging inconsistency, his corruption-ravaged watch should have been a major motive for sustaining a largely symbolic but profoundly moral gesture of making his assets declaration public.

And he is wrong in assuming that the public declaration of his assets will not change the country. Everything Presidents do, or fail to do, or refuse to do can and do change the country. Nigerians do not want to wait until President Jonathan leaves office before he is investigated. Nor are they particularly concerned with his wealth, unless he has something to hide. But they do want to know that he is insulated from some of the earth-shaking scandals around the fuel-subsidy scam, the pension scam, the Malabu Oil scandal, and the serious damage which the absence of openness and transparency can cause to the integrity of leaders. Simply put, President Jonathan, under the circumstances, can only be accountable to Nigerians if he makes his assets public. If does not give a damn over their feelings over the matter, he needs to know that they give a damn.

But even before President Jonathan assesses the full impact of his unfortunate outing on national television, a Federal High Court in Abuja dealt another serious blow to efforts to keep a sealed lid on the income of our legislators. Justice Bilkisu Bello Aliyu ordered the Clerk of the National Assembly to disclose details of the salary, emoluments and allowances collected by members of the Senate and House of Representatives between 2007 and last year. A non-governmental organization, Legal Defence and Assistance Project had gone to court, using provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2011 to demand the details of the fabulous take home pay of our legislators, saying that the issue affects public interest, since payments to the legislators are made from public funds.

The national assembly had objected to an earlier request for the details from the NGO. The law makers who passed the F.O.I Act after massive pressure had, even more amazingly, hired a Senior Advocate to argue before the judge that the NGO had no locus standi to make such a request. The technicality involved in the matter is not the issue. The real issue is that people elected to represent our interests do not want us to know how much we pay them or if they pay themselves more than they should.

The assault on open government which President Jonathan and the national assembly are leading will encourage the damaging perception that our leaders are dipping their hands in the till. This resistance against openness and accountability will fail, because more and more Nigerians will demand that our leaders live above board, and that we see them do so. Perhaps it is time to amend the law, and compel presidents and at least governors and legislators to declare their assets and liabilities publicly. All good friends of our legislature should also advise it to resist the temptation to appeal the ruling of the Abuja High Court on their emoluments. Its image right now can do without further damage.

Oops!

Last week I referred to N. Machiavelli as a Greek Philosopher. A few readers such as Ayo and Vita drew my attention to my error. He was Italian.

FROM THE FRONT LINE

“Even When a bird is up in the sky, its mind is always on the ground.”

A Ugandan Proverb

I am writing this on the sixth day of the near-total lockdown of Kaduna State where I live. Since two bombs went off in two churches in my hometown, Zaria, and another in Kaduna, my fellow citizens have been back to familiar trenches or behind closed doors counting losses and licking wounds. We have been let out a total of ten hours in these six days, and  we have been told we will be allowed out for another four hours on Sunday so that church services can hold. But we are also living in fear over the possibility that churches will be bombed again, and some members of the Christian community will embark on another reprisal mission against Muslims, and then Muslims will embark on their own counter- reprisals.

Behind closed doors, and even as rampaging mobs fought  and killed each other, we heard that President Jonathan had jetted out to Brazil; that the US government has imposed its own sanctions on three leaders of Boko Haram insurgency; that the Legislature has summoned the President on security; and on return, Jonathan promptly fired the Minister of Defence and the NSA. All cold comfort to people like us on the frontline, who are living every Nigerian's worst nightmare, which is that this insurgency will succeed in pitching citizens in a war against each other. Right now families here have no food, no water, no power, no money, and no peace. The people who planted those bombs in Zaria and Kaduna could not have chosen a weaker link in the Nigerian chain. Does our leadership have an answer to this spiral into apocalyps?

I found an old commentary I had written on President Jonathan's leadership I thought I could share with you. It was written way back in September, 2011. Happy reading, and pray for us:

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.                          

VICTIMS, ALL.

“When a hunter sets a trap using a goat as bait, he doesn’t expect to catch rabbit”  A Nigerian Proverb.

  

I am one the millions of residents of Kaduna State who have been under lockdown since bombs went off in Zaria and Kaduna two Sundays ago. We have been let out for a total of ten hours since we were clamped into detention, and part of those hours were promptly utilized by our traditional religious combatants to resume hostilities. As things stand now, we live in fear over what will happen on Sunday(I am writing this on Saturday). Will they bomb churches again, and force us to resume hostilities, as Christians pounce on the nearest Muslim for reprisals, and Muslims  embark on counter-reprisals? Now that President Jonathan is back with a sacking here and a sacking there, should we dare to dream that this nightmare will be more effectively handled?

 Most citizens here have no food, no water, no power, no peace, and no faith that they will not be casualties tomorrow, or the next day. I cannot write a new column as my secretary, Ruth, lives on the other part of a city rigidly segregated by faith. But I can share with you the views I expressed in December last year over our situation. How little has changed:

The bombs that went off on  Christmas Day at Madalla in Niger State, in Jos Plateau State and in Damaturu and Potiskum, in Yobe State appear to have many purposes. One was to send a signal that whoever the Boko Haram bombers are, they plan to sustain their terror campaign. Two, the bombs were intended to further expose the vulnerability of the Nigerian State and its citizens, in spite of elaborate security arrangements to ensure a relatively safe Christmas. Three, the bombs may have been intended to trigger widespread conflicts between muslims and christians. The first two objectives obviously succeeded. The third appears to have sought to deepen inter-faith suspicions and hostility, and possibly trigger another round of mayhem involving innocent muslims and christians. So far, both groups have remained largely restrained, although there is justifiable anger among christians, and fear of undeserved reprisals among muslims. Someone, somewhere is attempting to pitch millions of muslims against millions of christians in a war where both will be reluctant combatants, and losers.

          The gruesome images and the pains of the losses and injuries from the Christmas day bombings will shock and offend every civilized person. The deliberate targeting of churches by people who claim that they are avenging the killing of muslims last year will naturally inflame passions, and offend muslims who recognise that their faith does not sanction the taking of innocent lives. The anger and bitterness which is felt across the land over the mass killing of people whose only crime appears to be their faith is only a step away from violence against those suspected as supporters of the killers or those who share their characteristics. The helplessness of the victims in Madallah, in Jos and Potiskum and Damaturu reminds the nation of the victims of Jos, Zonkwa and many other areas and conflicts where innocent people were murdered for their faith alone.

          The disclaimers by prominent muslims traditional rulers and clerics will have some effect in terms of calming nerves, but they will also raise more questions than answers. People will ask what influence these leaders and clerics have over the muslim community they speak for, if they cannot limit or eliminate the threats and the dangers posed by the bombers. The bombers of Christmas day who claim to be Boko Haram say they bombed churches in retaliation against the killing of muslims during last year’s Sallah celebrations in Jos. They claim that neither the Muslim leadership nor the Nigerian state took steps to protect the muslims in Jos or bring their killers to justice. In this manner, they undermine the credibility of muslim leaders and the Nigeria state. A logical question to ask is who is speaking for the Muslim community in Nigeria today? Is it Boko Haram, which both fights the Nigeria state and places bombs which kills innocent christians and muslims alike; or the mainstream leaders who denounce their goals and tactics as un-Islamic? When Boko Haram bomb churches, they expose millions of innocent muslims to retaliatory attacks, which traditional leaders and Muslim clerics cannot prevent, or protect them from. Attacks on muslims far from the theatre of conflicts will trigger more attacks from muslims, and the vicious circle will be complete.

          If the strategy of Boko Haram, or whoever is hiding behind its name and grievances is to bring the Nigerians state to its knees, it could not have found a better tactic than one which touches muslims and christians where they hurt most, and mobilizes them in their largest numbers. No christian will fail to feel anger at the killing of whole families who were just leaving a church service on Christmas day. Their killers will remind the nation that muslims were equally slaughtered at a mosque in Jos a few months ago on Sallah Day, an event which angered all muslims. When the state fails to assume a firm control over the situation by limiting anger after these killings, or apprehending perpetrators, communities will be tempted to take revenge. Muslims have no monopoly over bomb-making know-how, or weapons. They congregate five times daily in millions of mosques across the nation, and are therefore even more vulnerable to attacks. There are millions of muslims in every nook and cranny of the nation, many living in isolation in communities far from their homes. They are exposed, and vulnerable to attack from people who may think their faith alone qualifies them for being murdered.

          At this stage, it is clear that there is a plan to cause massive crises along religious lines in Nigeria. It is time to ask some uncomfortable questions as well. Could the scenario painted by a United State agency of the failure of the Nigerian state be playing out? Is this attempt to push the Nigeria state to fail being engineered by external forces? If so, what are the possible objectives behind the plan? Is there a plan for a relatively crisis-free break-up of the nation, or is the plan simply to cause massive and prolonged crises between and within ethnic and religious groups? Is Nigeria’s considerable oil and gas resource a factor in this attempt; and could some interest out there be targeting exclusive control of this resource by alienating the rest of the nation from it?

          Even more sinister, it is legitimate to ask whether Boko Haram now merely provides a cover for stronger and more sophisticated interest which is fighting targets such as the U.S, Nigerian christians and the Nigerian state, using Nigerian muslims as hostages. Is there some credibility to the suspicion that Al Qa’ida in the Sahel has taken over the local grievances of Boko Haram, and is now fighting for its own agenda, which has little to do with the real interests of Nigerian muslims and other citizens? Or again, is there some credibility to the suspicion that some sinister forces are milking the security situation in our country for financial gains, and are sustaining the current levels of hostility and fear using the cover and modus operandi of Boko Haram?

          Tragically, there appears little effort towards identifying exactly what the nature of the threat is. If there is one, government appears determined only to throw technology and money at it. Hard political and security intelligence is always difficult to come by in conflicts of this nature. Yet, hard intelligence is precisely what the government needs to deal with this major threat, and it has very little time to acquire it. The most imminent and dangerous fallout of the Christmas bombings is that they will raise the levels of fear and anger among most Nigerians. Many christians will be tempted to adopt a simple position which links Boko Haram with all muslims, and will hold all muslims responsible for Boko Haram’s atrocities. Muslims will reject the linkage, and will in turn, claim that they are even more victims of Boko Haram than christians. They will resent their religion being used as cover for un-islamic activities, and will in turn claim that muslims are being killed in many parts of the nation  for being muslims alone, and the Nigerian state is unwilling or unable to bring their killers to justice.

          The most serious threat to the current situation, however, is the possibility that the Nigerian state will lose its credibility as the protector of our collective security. Whoever is behind these bombings and killings has succeeded in casting major doubt in the minds of citizens over the ability of this administration to protect both muslims and christians. If we cannot feel and be protected, we may be tempted to protect ourselves. In a situation where christians and muslims feel threatened by each other, it takes very little to trigger a disastrous chain of events. In these days with so much anger and passion, it is difficult to convince all Nigerians that muslims and christians are all victims of this frightening wave of terror. The plan may be to get them to engage in an unending blood-letting, but it it will be a war without a victory.  If they fight, they will be reluctant warriors. They do not need to fight, it muslim leaders act and show even more openly that Boko Haram is condemnable. They do not need to fight if Christian leaders do not make capital out of the genuine grievances of their flock and urge them into a senseless confrontation. But above all the nation does not need to take up arms against itself if the government and leaders can take bold steps to plug the many gaping holes around our security.

PROGRESS OF THE WELL-DIGGER

“An ugly life is still preferable to a beautiful funeral”
Kathrine Hepburn

A well-digger makes progress only by digging himself further into the ground, until he reaches water. Sometimes, he goes so deep into the earth that by the time he strikes water, he is too deep. Climbing up, or being pulled up and out of the well becomes a very hazardous affair and by the time he is out it seems as if it really wasn’t worth all the trouble. It is even worse when he digs to dangerous depths, only to find that there is no water at the bottom. Watching the House of Representatives’ outing last week Friday over the fuel subsidy saga and scandal, Nigerians must feel like the well digger who dug deep into the earth, but is unsure over the quality of water he struck, or even if it is water. To abandon the digging will amount to wasted effort. To dig deeper may yield more impure water, and jeopardize his life.

The grand dreams that the fire President Jonathan lit when he said removing subsidy on petroleum products will liberate the economy from the grip of waste and corruption which is the subsidy policy went up in flames when allegations of corrupt practices by chairman of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy, Farouk Lawal began to filter. It is reasonable to assume that even President Jonathan himself had no inkling over the effect which his insistence to remove subsidy and “free” trillions of Naira being wasted around it will generate. Nigerians demanded evidence that the subsidy was wasted. Ministers reeled out statistics and figures that contradicted each other and shocked the nation. CBN Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi rolled out figures that suggested that the subsidy policy and regime was costing the nation far much more than it was worth. Subtle hints at the absence of transparency and waste became loud howls against unprecedented plunder of our resources around the subsidy policy.

Having cried wolf, the President could not retreat and protect the interests involved in the subsidy regime. He got half of what he wanted, which was a lower subsidy level, even though no one was sure exactly what was the actual level of subsidy we paid for. But the President and the powerful interests involved in the subsidy policy were left dangerously exposed to the intense scrutiny of organized labour, a mobilized and articulate civil society and an enraged citizenry which wanted to know much more than was healthy for an administration with intimate relationship with many of the key players in the saga. The penalty for higher pump price was that the clamour for an investigation over the embarrassing exposés and improvements in the levels of transparency in the oil and gas sector had to be addressed.

Enter the national assembly, with its well-honed instinct for opportunity. The House of Representatives’ initiative had much promise. Its hearings had all the ingredients of serious business: a legislator with a carefully-cultivated image for uprightness; openness, television cameras and carefully choreographed media engagements that hinted at attempts to compromise the probe. It was vintage national assembly: strong muscle; an eye to public acclaim; trial by television and massive activity away from television cameras. Within a few weeks, the nation was told that findings, (arrived at after incredible pressure were resisted) show that a few companies have swindled us of trillions of Naira; that they are known; and that the President will be asked to commence prosecution. Nigerians thought they had their pound of flesh from multi billionaires who have been exposed by a few brave men and women.

But the cartel also knew the terrain well, and had an intimate knowledge of the legislature and its weaknesses. It was not going to roll over and submit to a public relations exercise which had the potential to cause them massive inconvenience. Since the Presidency appeared powerless to protect the major players in the subsidy saga, they would adopt their own do-it-yourself strategy. They would have known, as key players in a political system where huge resources from the private sector are mobilized to fund electoral campaigns and weaken regulatory mechanisms of government, that the legislature was vulnerable and available. The committee system of the legislature creates pockets of massive influence, and weak points in a system which is difficult to penetrate from outside. A deal struck at the committee level, or a decision or recommendation is hardly questioned or overruled. Chairmen of committees are extremely powerful people, and members yield them much ground to negotiate or relate to objects of probes or targets of oversight. On the whole, the public sees very little of what is actually done by committees, even in televised events. Many public officials or other persons who relate with committees of the legislature prefer to keep sealed lips over the experience, but in private, they do not hold up the institution as the beacon of integrity. With stakes sky high, either the desperation of the subsidy cartel or the greed and assured confidence of the legislators was to threaten to compromise the outcome of the probe. They did, and we still do not know how badly.

The report of Farouk Lawal’s committee is now not worth the paper it is written on. In spite of all the efforts being made to distance the report itself from Farouk, the bitter truth is that the report is tainted beyond redemption. Far from redressing the damage by the House through the public relations stunt of re-listing Otedola’s companies, the act merely calls into question the credibility of all other findings and recommendations in the report. The infamy of instructing the House to de-list the two companies in the first place by Farouk has exposed other members of the committee (which for some curious reason is still there, intact, even though its report has been presented and accepted) will not be obliterated by the bravado and seeming defiance of the House’s decision to re-list. Why should anyone believe that Otedola was the only one asked to give bribes, or who actually gave? Why should anyone believe that subsequent work on the report will be conducted with higher levels of integrity with everyone else in place except Farouk? Why should President Jonathan take the national assembly serious when it demands that he forwards its report to law enforcement agencies for action? Why should we have faith that law enforcement agencies which collaborated with Otedola to ensnare Farouk will be fair and dispassionate in investigating and possibly prosecuting cases? If ten or more importers come forward to claim that bribes were demanded, will that torpedo the entire report or would it still retain some value?

As matters stand, Nigerians need to demand that President Jonathan sets up a Judicial Panel of Enquiry on Fuel Subsidy, which should investigate the entire policy, its practice, the Farouk Lawal report and the bribery saga. Many Nigerians will scoff at this idea, given the deep distrust – much of it justified – over all institutions of state. But whatever reservations we have over having a judicial investigation, it is better than having a severely compromised report moving back and forth between the executive and legislature, which may be precisely what those who subverted it want. Whatever happens, we must not end up like the well digger who digs himself into the bowels of the earth and finds no water, and then is unable to come up. The President may not set up a judicial panel on his own volition. The national assembly will not abandon the Farouk Lawal report (as amended) on its own volition. So Nigerians should demand for what can be done with some credibility, because this scam must be paid for, and not with bribes.

ARE WE THERE YET?

“If two men on the same job agree all the time, then one of them is useless. If they disagree all the time, then both are useless.” Darryl F. Zanuck

Ironically, President Jonathan started it all. In his bid to convince a skeptical nation that he needed to remove the subsidy on petroleum products, he harped on the existence of waste and abuse of the subsidy policy which made the product cheap, but deprived the state of the resources it needed to invest in critical sectors. The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Minister of Finance followed through with shocking statistics on the drain to the economy which the subsidy policy represented. There were remote hints at large scale corruption and systemic plunder, but these became louder only when civil society and organized labour began to ask searching questions about the cost of imported and consumed petroleum products, as well as quantities and benchmarks on appropriate pricing.

Suddenly, the dark veils around the fuel subsidy world was being lifted, partly because citizens asked awkward questions; and partly because the administration which made such desperate moves to remove the subsidy failed to answer such questions. No one could say how much petroleum we consumed on a daily basis; or how much we paid for its importation; or why it cost what it did; or why we had to pay more than 100% more for a litre of petroleum. When it began to filter through to the citizenry that corruption was largely responsible for the huge cost of the subsidy policy, Nigerians demanded that Jonathan removed corruption, not subsidy. The National Assembly, with its well-developed instinct for opportunity waded in with ad hoc committees to probe the subsidy policy. An almighty confrontation took place between a well-mobilized citizenry and an administration which had committed itself to a battle it was ill-prepared to win, but could not lose. In the end, both sides lost. The administration raised the pump price on petroleum, but left itself open to searching demands for transparency and massive inquiry. Nigerians lost the battle to keep the subsidy where it was, but gained a strategic foothold on the administration’s defenses, particularly its low capacity on relating with big business and corruption.

The probing hearings by the National Assembly looked promising. The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee in particular looked like what the nation needed to expose the deep and elaborate scam which cost us trillions in stolen funds, and which everyone involved in managing our economy said had to be stopped, or our economy will crash. It was headed by a well-known legislator who had carefully cultivated an image of Mr Clean. The hearings were open, televised, and full of drama. Everything you could expect in a probe with high stakes was there: threats of blackmail; strong denials and bullying tactics; elaborate plays to the gallery; conjectures; facts; half facts and falsehood dressed as evidence.

But like most probes of this nature, the public actually sees very little of the action. Substantial amount of energy and maneuvering takes places behind hearing rooms and television cameras, when high stakes and endemic corruption size each other up, and negotiate a settlement. And the stakes could not have come much higher. The target of the probe is a cartel intimately connected with the administration. It is substantially the power base and financial powerhouse on which the Jonathan Presidency relied to come to power. Some of the biggest names under investigation are the economic pillars of the administration. The assault on the subsidy policy was a declaration of war and although it was triggered by the Jonathan administration, the incursion of the national assembly, and the very high expectations over the exposure of unprecedented sleaze had threatened a major lifeline of many multi billionaires.

It would have been foolhardy to think these extremely wealthy and well-connected interests will not fight back. Since it appeared as if the presidency had inadvertently hung them out to dry, they sized up the enemy in the national assembly. It was an enemy they knew very well. The legislature’s many layers of committees and other mechanisms for oversight is a familiar facade behind which they have transacted many businesses. Every activity of the executive or the economy has a committee which interfaces with it in the legislature. Committees are powerful. Their words or findings on any issue is virtually gospel for their colleagues in the House or Senate. Chairmen of Committees are extraordinarily powerful, which is why the fight over them is so intense. Chairmen could take decisions for Committees, and in most instances they broker “resolutions” between committees and targets of probes or subjects of oversight. Everyone who has interfaced with committees of the legislature comes out with massive bruises and tightly sealed lips.

The only way the national assembly probe into the fuel subsidy scam could have yielded genuine dividends was if the legislature operated absolutely above board. This means resisting both the pressure from the cartel to compromise, or pressure from within to have a bite at the cherry. It appears to have capitulated without a fight under both pressures.

We have now come full circle. The unheard-of corruption which characterized the subsidy policy now threatens to destroy all evidence against it. All the legalese and face-saving stunts by the legislature will not salvage a report which is badly tainted by cynical manipulation of rules, institutional mechanisms, security agencies and public opinion. The reality is that the findings of the committee are not worth the paper they are written on. Nothing will obliterate the infamy of the chairman is delisting of Otedola’s companies on the floor of the house. Nor would the re-listing of the companies salvage the integrity of the report or of the House of Representatives. The collusion of the executive arm through the involvement of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies will further dent the integrity of the exercise. Why should President Jonathan or other Nigerians believe that Otedola is the only person who was asked to give bribes to the chairman or the committee? Why should Nigerians believe a word of the other members of the committee? What, in fact, is the committee doing at this stage, when its report has been submitted to the full house? Just how much behind-the-scene activity around the subsidy probe do Nigerians know? Why was it necessary for the House to pass a vote of confidence on its Speaker? Does it suggest that he or his position are under threat as a result of the muck from the scandal?

Painful as it is, it is fair to say that the Farouk Lawal report is tainted beyond redemption. The president should now constitute a judicial panel of inquiry to examine every facet of the subsidy policy, including the Farouk Lawal report and the bribery allegation. This suggestion itself will be dismissed by many Nigerians who are convinced, not without some justification, that the judiciary is just as bad as the executive and legislative arms. But this is not a reason not to insist on an open, judicial inquiry. Certainly, it will be difficult believe that the same Ad Hoc Committee with a new chairman, a House which is desperately interested in covering up its weaknesses at this stage; security and law-enforcement agencies whose involvement in the saga has already substantially compromised them; and a president who has shown a very weak political will to fight corruption, will produce a result out of this tragic development that will substantially damage corruption. Our anger as a people at the impunity and arrogance with which power robes us of our few possessions is yet to reach its limits. But it is getting there, and many young people in particular are asking if we are there yet. We must avoid getting there. A judicial panel of inquiry into the subsidy scam and scandal is the only option left.

THIS ELUSIVE DRAWING BOARD

“Truth exists; only lies are invented”.
G. Braque, 1882 – 1963

Barely twenty four hours after the influential cleric Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi claimed that he has been mandated by the Federal Government to negotiate with the Jamaatu Ahlil Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad (JASLIWAJ) and that he was already on talking terms with the insurgency, the group released a statement repudiating his claim, and closing the door against any future negotiations with the government of Nigeria. The JASLIWAJ warned the cleric with quite possibly the largest following among muslim clerics in the north to stay clear of its conflict with the Nigerian State, and not to allow his revered name to be dragged in the mud. The statement confirmed what the Sheikh denied, which is that Dr Datti Ahmed did initiate some mediation which later collapsed.

The blaze of publicity which announced the entry of Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi into the tricky waters of relations between JASLIWAJ and the Nigerian government had raised hopes that the crippling confrontations between the insurgency and the government may abate soon. Perhaps the manner the Sheikh chose to announce his involvement, with a torrent of details and a tinge of doctrinal celebration should have alerted people knowledgeable in these matters that it was all too good to be true. Certainly, a letter from a state government official and a press conference in which the Sheikh bares all was highly unlikely to build confidence. In fact, the press conference itself was held amidst one of the longest and most bloody confrontations between the JASLIWAJ and security forces in Maiduguri which reportedly took lives on both sides. It was held one day before the assassination of a retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police in Kano took place, for which the group later claimed credit. For good measure, JASLIWAJ says it will continue to attack the “who is who” in the country.

Ordinarily, you would say we are back to the drawing board. But is there a drawing board, and if there is one, who is drawing what on it? The federal government has not confirmed that it mandated Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi to negotiate on its behalf; and it is most unlikely to, particularly since its security spokespersons and ministers keep telling the nation that the back of the JASLIWAJ has been essentially broken, which is why attacks and bombings are becoming less frequent. The statement which denied that the Sheikh has the ear of the JASLIWAJ was concluded in the usual combative language of the insurgency, with claims of unreported victories over security forces and threats to media organizations which show bias against the group.

Now we have two outstanding and respected Muslims who have got their fingers burnt. These are the ones we know. Our traditional rulers are engaged in unending meetings and contacts which they hope will limit the damage of the insurgency, but there are no results to show for these efforts. Only two weeks ago, a powerful northern group of elders demanded that President Jonathan reins in his rampaging security forces, and re-opens negotiations with JASLIWAJ. That visit was the clearest statement they could have made to the effect that northern elders have no solution for this crippling insurgency. Northern governors are limited to mouthing meaningless platitudes and throwing bits and pieces of relief at victims of the conflict because they are themselves prime targets of the insurgency. They spend huge amounts in support of security task forces, but have no influence over how they operate. Citizens do not look up to governors to protect them either against the insurgency or security forces. They bear the brunt of a conflict without recourse to relief or restitution.

What about the Muslim clergy, then? The fundamental basis of JASLIWAJ dispute with the Nigerian State is doctrinal. The insurgency is pre-eminently a repudiation of mainstream Muslim doctrines which essentially accept that it is possible to be both a good Muslim and live in a secular nation. Every once in a while, these tensions have resulted in uprisings and other forms of conflict. They have in fact, become a permanent feature in the history of Muslims in the north of Nigeria. These tensions are what produced the Maitatsine and similar uprisings, and they were remotely behind the attempts to expand the scope of Sharia in the north.

The deep-seated sectarian divide in the north as well as the weakness of the Muslim clergy in mainstream political activities have precluded a comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of these tensions, and how they should be approached. The JASLIWAJ is the worst case scenario for a weak Muslim leadership. Now you have a movement which has its roots in abuses by a secular state, and a historical tradition which periodically chart throws up group that a course for Nigerian Muslims. How should the leadership of Nigerian Muslims react to this insurgency, if it can react at all, that is? Does it have the capacity to take on the insurgency at the doctrinal level, and provide a lead in the manner Nigerian Muslims relate to it? Right now, a relatively-small group of young Muslim men and women has taken the center stage and are putting forward an agenda on behalf of Nigerian Muslims. Even if he can–and the records so far shows that he cannot–President Jonathan is not likely to be the best source of resolving this problem. The response of the Nigerian state will continue to be to meet force with force, and simple, God-fearing Muslims and Christians pay the price. How long will people in the north live like this?

The real tragedy in the JASLIWAJ – government confrontation is that virtually everyone who should raise his voice one way or the other is retreating. The arena has been abandoned to combatants of the insurgency and security forces. Hundreds of innocent Muslims and Christians die, or suffer constant and debilitating damage to their lives and livehood. Security forces behave as if all communities which habour insurgents are the enemy, perhaps encouraged by the assumption that at best they are guilty by association; and worst, are active collaborators in a war against the state. The only way this type of conflict can end is if one side achieves an outright victory, at an extremely high, but avoidable cost. There is an alternative. It involves the active and voluntary involvement of religious leaders who have respect and clout in the search for answers to questions which the JASLIWAJ is forcing on the Muslim Umma. The lesson to be drawn from the brief incursion of Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi into this conflict is that Nigerian Muslims must be more actively involved in engaging both the Nigerian state and the JASLIWAJ. This business of waiting to be assigned a mediatory role before you act is both dangerous and opportunistic. Muslim clergy should close ranks and find the courage to take up the basic doctrinal issues which appear to feed this insurgency. There is a drawing board, but no one is working on it.

THE ANATOMY OF FAILURE

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” Abba Eban

The crash of the Dana Aircraft last week in Lagos raises many issues regarding the manner our government relates to its citizens. It provides an opportunity to highlight basic flaws in the structure and operations of governance institutions in Nigeria, and identify critical areas where genuine improvements must be made. Tragically, those who have paid for decades of bad governance and corruption with their lives will join the statistics which increase by the day on our collective failure to run a nation which should fulfil its potentials to be great.

Our constitution assigns our government two basic functions. One is to protect lives and property of citizens. The other is to pursue our economic well-being. Government is the totality of elected leaders, a judiciary and a public service which is the primary instrument for the pursuit of the objectives of government. Elected leaders aggregate the needs of the citizenry; articulate them in terms of policies, programmes and decisions, and then seek to satisfy them through structures and institutions which have specific mandates and operational capacities. The three arms of government complement each other by exercising critical functions of their own, and through in-built mechanisms which limit potential excesses or conflicts. On the whole, our constitution envisages the existence of a political process built around the values of service and honest leadership; a genuinely-elected leadership transparently answerable to citizens and voters; and a public service which operates exclusively on the basis of loyalty to public interest and provision of services to the public. Citizens are supposed to be protected from an inept and corrupt government through the unhindered application of the rule of law and a democratic system which allows citizens to reject incompetent leaders through free and fair elections. Governance is run strictly on the assumption that every elected official or public servant is answerable for his actions. Failure or abuse will be punished by regulatory mechanisms which work, and diligence and outstanding commitment will be rewarded by a merit-based system which allows good leaders to stand out, and committed and outstanding public officers to rise to positions of leadership.

So why doesn’t our system work as envisaged by the constitution? You have to start from a political and democratic system which is grossly abused in the process of producing leaders. Corruption of all the basic processes, institutions and systems create massively-disputed elections, and leaders with questionable mandates emerge, who then devote all their energy and state resources to retaining power rather then serving the public. Leaders then plunder and mobilize state resources to retain control over sources and instruments of power. Basic rules on management of state institutions and assets are violated by people who should protect them, and political patronage becomes the hallmark of the management of the public service.

From there, the rest follow a logical pattern. State agencies are headed by political appointees whose qualifications are their potential to reinforce political control, not merit or competence. They in turn run state agencies principally by reference to political imperatives and the instinct for survival. Hallowed values of service and commitment to public interest are jettisoned for immediate political gratification and satisfaction of personal goals. Once the political leadership is unable to live by the rules, it loses its capacity to police political appointees and the public service. In the public service bureaucracy, resistance to corruption and subversion of rules is punished, and virtually everyone else quickly learns the utility of submitting to leaders who violate rules and standards. The public service joins the assault on public resources and subversion of basic rules meant to protect public interest and public resources from a rapacious and corrupt leadership.

Government agencies undertake the vast majority of all activities of government, while ministries deal essentially with policy. There are basically two types of agencies: those which provide and maintain standards and services which government provides to citizens, and those which regulate services provided for by the private sector to citizens. The latter are empowered by the laws which set them up to set and monitor compliance with standards and ensure that citizens get good value for money. They operate in areas such as telecommunications and aviation, where private operators have assets running in tens or hundreds of billions of Naira. In order to be effective, agencies which operate as regulators require a number of things. One is a political leadership that has a very strong commitment to public interest and the provision of quality service to citizens. Second, they need to operate in an environment where corruption is extremely limited, or non-existent. Then they need strong professional leadership which understands the environment in which it works. Finally, they need a vigilant and active consumer–citizenry which is capable of demanding for both accountability and quality service.

In Nigeria, where the leadership deploys a very weak political will behind the fight against corruption, we have all the elements which make for failure, the type we see in the crash of the DANA airline last week, and the failure to handle our telecommunication companies in a manner that will make them render services which justify their cost. Operators find it easy to by-pass vital regulations because of endemic corruption. Head of agencies are compromised by operators, and by a system which does not lend itself easily to the application of rules against operators. Heads of agencies are unsure of the nature of the relations between operators and Ministers. Ministers are unsure of the nature of relations between operators or chief executive officers of regulatory agencies (who are political appointees like them) which report to them, with the presidency. Elements in the presidency are unsure over who is “overseeing” a particular sector or operator. The legislature rants and raves, and recommends sanctions which are either ignored or are settled “out of court”.

Our system fails because persons and institutions which are meant to protect the citizenry have defected to the enemy. Weak political will and lack of administrative capacity create weak regulatory mechanisms. This is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and disaster. Failures breed more failures. This is why no one has been jailed or sanctioned for all the air crashes we have witnessed which took hundreds of lives since 1992. This is why government is unable to deal with the telecommunication companies which provides quite possibly the worst service in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. There are quite possibly hundreds of the equivalent of DANA crashes in many other sectors, but the biggest failure is that Nigerians are resigning themselves to living with them.

Nigerians must demand an answer to the inability of our governments to perform the basic functions for which they exist. The answers, however, cannot come until honest and committed leaders are voted into power. This in turn will not happen until the electoral process is made to reflect the popular will. This will not happen unless Nigerians rise now to demand that whatever needs to be done must be done to ensure that 2015 elections are free and fair. The vast majority of Nigerians just want good and committed leaders. They will not lose sleep over where they come from, so long as they stop this free fall of our nation.

SAVING PRESIDENT JONATHAN

“I think the voters misunderestimated me.”
George W. Bush

If you dropped into the country from outer space in the last one week; and read newspapers or listened to private radio and television or browsed the social media, you would wonder what can possibly be done to save President Goodluck Jonathan from the Nigerian people. If you are a stranger to Nigerian politics and history, you will be forgiven if your think Nigerians are the most uncharitable people, and their president is the most maligned leader on the face of the earth. How is it possible that an entire nation will find nothing positive about a leader who only last year promised radical transformation and abundant fresh air to build a new nation out of the restrictions and limitations of its past? Chances are, you will think there is no satisfying the Nigerian people; and you will shake your head in pity for anyone who even dreams of stepping into Presidents Jonathan’s shoes in future.

It appears just about everyone now joins in this lynching of President Jonathan, no matter what he does. Just think, what could be more unfair than the Speaker of the House of Representatives choosing a day when the nation celebrated its new democratic tradition, with a PDP President who had just reeled out his achievements, to castigate President Jonathan for being less than diligent in assenting to bills? Although the President replied with a few blows of his own, the damage which this public falling out over a very important matter had been done. It was made worse for the President when the Senate President, a man seen as one of his most reliable pillars and who is being rumoured to be the handpicked successor to Jonathan, also joins the fray on the side of the Speaker, and insisted that the President is frustrating the law-making functions of the national assembly, and denying Nigerians fuller benefits of the democracy they just celebrated.

This quarrel is going on against the backdrop of rampant complaints that the President is foot-dragging over the full implementation of the recommendations of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy. Imagine! Not a word over whether these recommendations have met the minimal legal threshold. And the fact that a responsible President must study the recommendations and get inputs from his Ministers of Justice, Finance and Petroleum, as well as the E.F.C.C and a whole battery of regulatory agencies. And why should he not consult these important people, just because civil society says they have no business holding on to their seats after all the revelations during the hearing? Is he to sack them without evidence and legal advise, the type which only the Minister of Justice who again is being mentioned in the $1.1b Malibu scandal can give? Some even go further than the last one week and remind the nation that the President is relying on faulty legal advise to refuse to re-instate Justice Ayo Salami, when in fact the legal opinion which says he should is very likely informed by partisan considerations.

But if you are looking for evidence that there is a national conspiracy not to see anything good in President Jonathan’s decisions, you will not find stronger one than the uproar which followed his re-naming of the University of Lagos after the late icon of Democracy, Chief M.K.O Abiola. A move which even his worst political enemies should applaud as a masterstroke to regain him some ground in the south west was spun around by parochial forces to portray the President as insensitive, isolated and untutored in Yoruba and Nigerian politics. And to think those who engineered the spontaneous rebellion against the decision thought it will stampede the President into re-visiting the re-naming. Of course they have been proved wrong. Even some members of the Abiola family have written a formal letter of appreciation. But knowing Nigerians, this is highly unlikely to be the end of the matter.

Almost by the day, this chorus of President bashing finds new grounds and manifestations. A few days ago a coalition of civil society groups in Kano decided to sue the Joint Security Force (JTF) for a litany of offences committed in their pursuit of Boko Haram suspects. Many of these offences involve extra-judicial killings. Two days after, a very powerful and very elderly group of northerners visited the President with a long shopping list of grievances and demands, most of which the President is unlikely to have solutions to. They want the president to call his security agents to order, and they want him to rein-in his legion of spokespersons in different guises or forms who abuse and insult the north, and who are sowing dangerous seeds of discord.

These elders left homes quite possibly habouring Boko Haram activists in their neighbourhoods, and yet they want President Jonathan to find solutions just because he is President today. They want him to ask godfathers and official spokespersons to shut up, so that those who abuse him and say he has no handle over Nigerian problems will have their voices heard louder. These same elders did not descend on General Buhari when he used an analogy involving blood in commenting over the 2015 elections, yet they were led by an 85-year old blind man to ask him to play statesman and redress serious security and economic problems, most of which have roots which predated his presidency.

In fact, the evidence that Nigerians are after their President is almost inexhaustible. He asks them to use energy-saving light bulbs, and the nation rose up as one and says it would rather he cancels the increase in electricity tariff which he is just introducing. He posed in January for a European fashion magazine, admittedly at a time the nation was up in arms over the subsidy removal decision, and someone chooses this movement to flood the cyber space with the details and pictures of the President posing. Now, why on earth shouldn’t the President pose for a fashion magazine?

Even his own security agencies appear to be in on the act. How else do you explain the attack on a house in Kano in which all Boko Haram bigwigs meeting in the house and a German hostage were killed? If the security agents had good intelligence that such prime targets were available, you would think the thing to do was to arrest them, or at least try, and therefore gather huge intelligence and boost morale. But no. Truck loads of soldiers and helicopters invaded the building, killing everyone. According to the security forces, the insurgents killed the German before being killed themselves, possibly so the President cannot claim credit for a freed hostage.

This penchant for tearing up the records of achievement of President Jonathan was taken to global airwaves, when the BBC hosted Nasir el-Rufai, Alhaji Gulak and Dr Kabir Mato, as well as hundreds of tweeters and face bookers in a discussion on his performance. It was a very sorry outing for a President committed to righting massive wrongs, to hear Nigerians dismiss his performance so comprehensively. It makes you wonder what can be done to save President Jonathan from the Nigerian people?