POCKETING THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

By the time the new National Assembly is inaugurated today, Monday 6th of June, 2011, its leadership will bear a heavy imprint of the Executive’s hand. Since the return of democratic governance in 1999, no administration has been more desperate to affect the emergence of the legislature than this one. Whatever its motives are, there are serious grounds for the nation to worry over what the executive intends to use the legislature for.

The less-than-discreet efforts of the executive and the leadership of the PDP to affect the unopposed emergence of Senator David Mark as the Senate President had raised the concern of many Nigerians regarding the designs of the Executive over the Legislature, and in the longer term, in terms of its dealings with the legislature on substantive issues such as the exercise of functions, oversight or constitutional matters. Even making allowances for the PDP’s zoning principle, and the need to impose party supremacy over legislators, the strong arm tactics being employed in engineering the emergence of the leadership of the National Assembly has crossed all boundaries of decorum and propriety.

As from today, Senate President David Mark will preside over a Senate only with a heavy push from the Presidency. In the maneuvers to ensure that he stands unopposed, using the dubious criteria of seniority and a zoning policy which has largely been discredited, the Presidency and the PDP leadership has foisted upon the Senate a leadership which will substantially owe its position to it. It is probable that Senator David Mark would still have been chosen by his colleagues as their leader, and there is certainly enough on the ground to suggest that he would have emerged as Senate President on the basis of the perception of his performance among returning Senators; but this is all the more reason why the overt involvement of the Executive and the PDP leadership in his emergence today detracts from his record, and the integrity of the process.

Whoever emerges the Speaker of the House of Representatives after a messy and divisive fight to pre-determine the outcome of the contest will have a huge task just merely justifying his or her position. So bitter has the fight been over who should be the next Speaker that the membership of the House has been split right down the middle, and the fallouts of the fight have allegedly even involved the dramatic arrest and detention of the out-going Speaker. The contest between candidates of the Executive arm of government and the PDP leadership on the one hand, and that of many of the members of the House on the other, have opened up old wounds, and are reminding the nation that the fallouts over the last elections are still haunting the nation.

The candidate of the executive arm and the PDP leadership is being forced upon the legislators under the cover of a zoning arrangement which provides that the Speaker of the House of Representatives should come from the South West geo-political zone; a zone which has produced only four PDP members in the entire House of Representatives. Yet whoever the Speaker is, he or she will have to preside over a Chamber with elected members from many Parties and from many zones. Even though the PDP has more members in the House of Representatives than any other Party, a Speaker from the South West will be representing the zone with the least representation, whereas the North West, which is fielding the opposing candidate, has one of the largest PDP representatives in the chamber. If the executive-sponsored candidate emerges Speaker, substantial time and energy will have to be deployed by him or her to win the trust and confidence of members of the lower Chamber. This will be wasted time and energy, which should be more productively utilized in addressing the many challenges of governance in which the legislature is involved.

If the independent legislator with substantial following succeeds in defeating the government-sponsored candidate, he or she will face executive hostility which will subsist, subject to the degree of bitterness and damage to Party unity and harmony of the House which the fight would have engendered. He or she will also have to mend fences and build bridges with the opposing camp, as well as evolve strategies to facilitate the normalization of the work of the legislature within the shortest time-frame.

The legislature which is being inaugurated today will not have had a free hand in choosing its leadership or at best, the Speaker would emerge against a strong resistance of his Party and the Presidency. Yet this leadership will have decisive influence in the manner the legislature relates with the executive arm. The overbearing influence of the executive arm in determining the emergence of leaders of the legislature is bound to raise questions over what the PDP administration plans for the nation. The speculations or plans to push through some profound constitutional amendments which will seek to alter the nature of the Nigerian federal system, or amend tenures of the executive or some other initiatives which will affect the balances of power will draw much fuel from these heavy-handed tactics of the executive. The efficacy and integrity of the legislature will be compromised to the extent of the influence of the executive over it. The manner of the emergence of its leadership will have a definite influence on it in this regard. 

The April 2011 elections have thrown up serious political problems for Nigeria. These problems include many which have roots in the limited space for good government, transparency and competence. The emergence of a leadership in the legislature which is the product of the executive will not aid the need for good governance. It will put too much power in the hands of the Presidency and the PDP, and deny Nigerians the benefits of a government which operates with sufficient respect for the rule of law and enough controls to limit potential abuse.

THE MANY FACES OF NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY

The high drama which characterized the election of the new Speaker of the House of Representatives on Monday, 6th June 2011 showed the good, the bad and the ugly faces of Nigerian politics. There will be many perspectives on the outcome of an election which produced Representative Aminu Waziri Tambuwal as the Speaker against a most desperate effort by the Presidency and his own Party, the PDP to stop him. Many of these perspectives will not fail to notice that the landslide victory of Speaker Tambuwal against the Presidency’s and PDP’s candidate would have upset much of the apple cart of the ruling Party, and would require much rethinking on the part of those who think they have an unchallenged control over Nigeria’s political affairs. There is also much in the development to give some comfort to those Nigerians who want to see some semblance of the operations of a democratic system which is not under the total domination of a powerful Presidency and a single Party.

          The good side of the drama Nigerians watched live on Television was the emphatic assertion of the right of the Members of the House of Representatives to elect their own leaders. This contrasted very sharply against the engineered, unopposed emergence of Senator David Mark as Senate President. Although the unseen hand of much of the opposition was evident in defeating the PDP’s and President’s candidate, it was also obvious that many PDP members defied threats and many other intimidation tactics of their own party leadership to vote against its candidate, and elect another candidate who represents a real challenge to the attempt by the executive arm to manipulate the emergence of a leadership in both chambers of the National Assembly. The House of Representatives thus lived up to its reputation as the chamber with a stronger sense of obligation to the mandate of the Nigerian electorate. History has recorded that it was this same chamber which scuttled the third-term bid of the former, now expired, President Olusegun Obasanjo.

          The negative angle of this development is that in spite of its failure, the drama in the House showed clearly how desperate the executive arm is to take full control of the leadership of the legislature. The former Speaker was arrested a day before the high drama, ostensibly on suspicion of corruption. The new Speaker and Deputy Speaker had to enter the chambers disguised in order to avoid possible arrest. There were many legal skirmishes on the rules of the elections, with widespread suspicions that the Presidency and the PDP were attempting to change the rules. The PDP had rolled out all its big guns to flatten all opposition against a candidate from a zone which had produced only three members PDP in the entire chamber, and even had to out-flank the former President Olusegun Obasanjo who, in spite of losing total control of the South West geo-political zone, still nursed the hope that he could single-handedly facilitate the emergence of the nation’s fourth most power elected person. The election of Speaker Tambuwal, although by a wide margin, will inevitably create camps in the House, and there is likely to be prolonged turbulence and instability before the chamber settles down to business. He will have to find his way around the formidable anger and hostility of the Presidency and his Party, and will remain constantly vigilant against attempts to impeach him and install another candidate from the South West.

          Now that the election of Tambuwal has scuttled the PDP’s zoning arrangement, the Party has to go back to the drawing board. The situation right now is that the South West and the North East have none of the six zoned offices; the South East has the Deputy Senate President and the SGF; the North Central has the Senate President; the North West has the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and the South South has the President and the Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it is time for the Party to re-examine the political utility of its zoning and rotation principle, particularly when it zones offices irrespective of the Party’s performance or acceptance; and in a context where its rotation policy is in tatters after the candidature and election of President Goodluck Jonathan. Some perceptive PDP loyalists may also come to the conclusion that the game is up for the PDP as far as its dominance of national politics is concerned. In spite of its performance in the last elections, the facts indicate that it has only a firm control in North Central and South South geo-political zones. It has been uprooted in the South West. It is fighting a losing battle against APGA in the South-East, and against the CPC in the North West. The ANPP is still a force in many parts of the North as well.  

          It is also quite clear that opposition Parties have had a strong influence in the outcome of the election of Tambuwal against the PDP’s candidate. The ACN in particular appears to have instructed its Representatives to vote for Tambuwal and defeat the PDP’s candidate from the South West in order to make a stronger case for itself as the leading opposition Party. The gang-up against the PDP candidate and the embarrassing rebellion against the heavy-handed tactics of the PDP leadership show clearly that the PDP has no assured control over the affairs of the nations’ politics. Its attempt to engineer the emergence of the entire leadership of the legislative arm has been an expensive misadventure, and the Party will do well to come to terms with the fact that it has a difficult terrain to operate within.

          Now that the PDP administration has suffered a setback in its bid to take control over much of the Nigerian political space, Nigerians are likely to raise their comfort thresholds. Many people will also hope that the Presidency and the PDP will accept this setback in the spirit of democratic competition. The Presidency in particular should welcome the decision of the House of Representatives and allow Speaker Tambuwal and his Deputy to settle down immediately and lead the House without any hindrance. The Speaker and his Deputy should also move to mend fences with their colleagues; they must acknowledge the steadfast loyalty of their colleagues, not so much to their leadership, but to the inherent independence and integrity of the legislature. They should reward the members of the House with honest, competent and courageous leadership. This way, they can be assured of the protection of the members, and the Nigerian people.   

FREE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

A DIFFICULT PAST, A CHALLENGING FUTURE

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            

THE AMERICAN WHO AGITATES US

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO IS ON KADUNA STATE’S LIST?

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SCRAMBLE FOR OFFICES

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

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

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

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

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

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