President Jonathan

By Adamu Bello Mai-Bodi

The wedding Fatiha of Yusuf Buhari and the daughter of Sarkin Bichi was held with pomp and pageantry. All roads led to Bichi on Friday, 18 August 2021. As many as 80 aircraft brought guests to kano to witness the first son’s tying the knot to a Bayero descendent princess. To the amazement of many, the guests were dignitaries and politicians of different persuasions from across the country, who, albeit their differences, gathered to bless the occasion while they wine, dine, and exchange banters with each other. 

The sportsmanship they exhibited was awe-inspiring and outlandish for Nigerian politicians. It may be unintentional, but it should be an eye-opener to Nigerians at the bottom of the ladder. It sent a strong message to the youths, especially bootlickers, sycophants and the so-called media warriors who are ever ready to insult, blackmail, curse, condemn, disrespect and assassinate the characters of their bosses’ supposed political enemies at the expense of their self-esteem. There is no point in attacking and counterattacking one another in defence of these pretenders who only follow their aggrandisements without definite ideology whatsoever.

On Friday, the cliche about “no permanent friend or enemy in politics” was in full gear at Bichi Emir’s palace. Buhari, Atiku and Jonathan were present. Many former and serving Ministers, Governors, Senators Representatives and many other shot callers bundled themselves in Bichi palace with no regard to PDP, APC, South, North or East etc. Everyone was eventually their brothers’ keepers. Most notable was the unexpected comradeship between the former Aviation Minister Femi Fani Kayode and Malam Isah Pantami, the current Minister of Communication and Digital Economy. Given the hostility shown by the former towards the latter, many people were shocked.

If these old guys can forget their bitter differences and mingle to celebrate and or commiserate with one another depending on the situation, I think the downtrodden, especially youth are in a better position to embrace the culture of tolerance and to desist from being the tool for political attacks between these dissemblers who would be at each other’s throats only when their whims and caprices differ and would befriend themselves when their path crosses.

Hopefully, many discerning minds would heed this event and free themselves from unnecessary hatred, criticism, and resentment. Let love, mutual respect and fair play lead the way in all endeavours regardless of affiliations, be it political, regional or religious. “Experience,” they say, “is the best teacher”. May we be guided.

Adamu Bello Mai-Bodi writes from Gidado Bombiyo residence, K/kaji Azare.

By Tajuddeen Ahmad Tijjani

Various reports revealed that US senators are planning to halt the agreed sales of warplanes to the Federal Republic of Nigeria on human rights concerns. This unpopular decision leaves many Nigerians in awe, wondering why would the so-called peace-loving United States do that to a nation bedevilled by security challenges, ranging from violent secessionists, killer herdsmen, banditry, kidnapping and Boko Haram — an insurgency that consumes more than 36,000 lives from 2009 to date. 

The number one enemy of Nigeria is insecurity, as the country’s security agencies are having difficulty in surmounting the problem over the years. No doubt, the government of the federation is trying everything humanly possible to end the ugly trend. However, the challenge continues to prove insurmountable, mainly due to the lack of state-of-art weaponry in the country’s arsenal. Understanding this particular shortcoming forces the Buhari administration to shop for sophisticated armouries from the United States of America – a perceived important ally of the Nigerian state. Unfortunately, the bilateral relationship that exists for decades between the US and Nigeria that is expected to play a significant role in facilitating the arms deals and intelligence sharing has been disregarded by these US senators.

Suffice to say; this is not the first time the US turns down Nigeria’s demand for war gadgets on the purported account of human rights records. Denying Nigeria’s request during the Jonathan administration was undoubtedly one of the significant factors that made Nigerian forces deficient in combating Boko Haram, hence leaving the insurgency to prevail then. Now we are faced with many other terrorist acts; we cannot afford to experience the repetition of what happened before. Therefore, to accomplish this task of securing the territorial integrity of our nation, we must think outside the box and source alternatives to acquire sophisticated war gadgets that would help us eliminate terrorists and terrorism in the African most populace nation.

Ostensibly, America is not helping matters in our war against insurgency. No good ally would deny Nigeria a purchase of weapons at this challenging moment of turmoil. As a matter of urgency, the federal government should leave America and shop for the needed warplanes elsewhere. We can try the likes of Russia, China, Japan, South Korea or Germany to have expeditious delivery and usage because they are best with sophisticated ware fare all over the world.  

It’s high time for Nigeria and Africa to realise that some Western countries are not interested or concerned about our peaceful coexistence. It’s, therefore, significant to give priority to research and development to find ways to save ourselves from such last hour denials. Relying on the US to help us address the multiple security challenges in Nigeria and Africa is becoming suicidal. We must find some better allies that would be ever willing to help us out of any predicament unconditionally.

Tajuddeen Ahmad Tijjani writes from Galadima Mahmud Street K/Kaji Azare, Bauchi State.

By Lawan Adamu Usman

The glimmers of hopes that the country will have a free and fair election in the 2023 general election have been dashed by our senators. Section 52(3) of amendment bill 2021 which will provide room for the electronic transmission of election results from the polling unit, received a kiss of death by the APC senators after a rowdy session in the senate. In 2015, when president Jonathan introduced the card reader machine, which was part of the technology drive to checkmate multiple voting and detect elections fraud and ensure a free and fair election, the APC, which was desperate to clinch to power, commended the bold initiative. There is no gainsaying the fact, APC was the beneficiary of the card reader machine in the 2015 general election. The election victories recorded by the party across the country could be credited to such technological innovation.  

Little wonder, many Nigerians expected President Muhammadu Buhari to maintain the momentum in 2019 by passing section52(3) of the electorate act into laws, which will pave the way for electronic transmission of results. However, President Buhari failed to convince Nigerians why he could not approve the bill, cited short of time as the reason ahead of the 2019 general election. Also, our lawmakers’ lack of political will to unanimously agree and take a common position for the quick passing of the bill is unfortunate. While other African countries have since embraced technology and reformed their electorate process in tandem with the best global practice, some unpatriotic senators are dragging us to the medieval period.

By its name, the Independent National Electorate Commission (INEC) should act independently according to the laws that established it. For the Senate to insist that INEC should collaborate with the Nigeria Communication Commission (NCC) on the possibility of adequate network coverage in the country and seek its approval before it adopts electronic transmission of results raises serious suspicion on its part. 

The million naira questions begging for answers are: why the majority of APC senators voted against the electronic transmission of results? Are they acting on the script of their party to frustrate any genuine efforts to have a credible and acceptable poll in 2023? It is either the ruling party plans to rig the 2023 elections as suspected, or it is jittery that the electronic transmission of results will expose it to serious defeat.

Civil societies organisations and Nigerians should wake up and reject this glaring rape of our democracy. Democracy the world over thrives and flourishes based on free and fair elections. This can only be achieved if INEC is allowed to conduct credible elections and transmitted the results electronically as obtained in other democratic climes.

Lawan Adamu Usman (aka Mr LA) writes from Kaduna State. He can be reached via imustapha650@gmail.com.

 As we move closer to 2023, when power may be shifted to the South, social and political events point to a bleak future for the North. The North/South relationship is at its lowest level; tension is growing by the day, the body polity is being heated, and behind the scene, enemies of the country are planting the seeds of animosity. 

A bad omen is set for a bleak 2023 early this month when the Southern governors met in Lagos. Their communique strongly called for a power shift to the South come 2023. The governors had forgotten that leadership rotation was the brainchild of the North, that it was a political concession meant to heal old wounds following the June 12 political turmoil. They also forgot that when President Umar Musa died two years into his first term, the same South flouted the power shift arrangement. Former President Jonathan openly said this section of the country hated him because they said the power shift arrangement be honoured. 

Two recent social unrests define the Noth/South relationship and the political tension that’s setting. First was a disagreement between a Northerner, tomato seller and a Yoruba woman that degenerated into killings and displacement of mostly Northerners in Ibadan. Then came the IPOB’s sit-at-home order in the South East, where ethnic persecution of the Northerners ensued. Many were killed and hundreds displaced.

Recently, there seems to be a collective animosity towards the North and whatever the North represents. The problem with many Nigerians is that they can’t differentiate between elitism, elitist tendencies and the massive social gaps between the two classes. Historically, these same elites from either side of the divide have been known to exert elitist solidarity in perpetuating their own interests, in the process, alienating the masses. 

Most of these Southern grievances emanate from skewed political appointments by President Buhari. They forget that Buhari’s government is the reincarnation of Jonathan’s. Once, Air Marshall Alex Badeh, Major General Minimah, Air Vice Marshall Amosu were chiefs of defence, army staff and air staff, respectively. Only Admiral Jibrin was from another faith. Moreover, the President, Secretary to the Government, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Minister of Finance were from the same faith. The same with the ‘Kitchen Cabinets.’ Remember the powerful economic team? Hausas say ‘idan ɗan maye ya manta…’

Granted that President Buhari’s government suffers from poor public relations from the President himself to his public relations team. So also was Jonathan. Towards the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, shortly before the general elections, Jonathan and his wife, Patience, went to churches in Abuja and South East preaching the gospel of hatred. I am not condoning nor defending the present arrangement, far from that; I am reminding us about the past lest we forget. 

The recent Afenifere political blunder is a clear pointer that Southerners would politically persecute the Northerners when power is shifted to the South. Afenifere strikes intentionally and timely to cause disaffection. Like Chalie Hebdo, they know that to Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the centre of gravity; he’s the Prophet, the Divine link, the undisputed spiritual leader, the guide, the intercessor, the light, the mercy and blessing to humanity. To the Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the best that could happen to the world. Yet, they intentionally came out to hurt feelings and cause disaffection.

They claimed to be liberals, but where’s the so-called liberalism when you lack empathy? Where’s the so-called freedom of expression when it overlooks inclusion ànd pluralism? Where’s the so-called free press when it can’t draw a line between the intellectual identification of feelings, sensitivity, thoughts of a people on the one hand, and on the other hand, the subjective urge to exhibit petty tribal solidarity?  

What Afenifere does is self-immolation. This is because there’s no ethnic group in Nigeria that’s socio-culturally cohesive, an ethnic group that’s equally infiltrated by the two major religions like Yoruba. Religious consciousness is new to them. Now the Yoruba Muslims would undoubtedly realise that Afenifere doesn’t represent them. Thus, setting an unprecedented social trajectory of an ethnic group stratified along religious faultline. It would be the worst-case scenario, for this would divide families, friends, and social groups along religious lines as is found in the North, the root cause of social unrest.

The North may have a majority in the service chiefs and defence, yet they can’t secure the North from the clutch of marauding bandits. We have the minister of finance who can’t lessen the Noth’s skydiving poverty! 

As 2023 draws closer, it seems, whoever is selected to be president from the South, there may be the tendency of political persecution of the North, and the basis of this would be justified on the failure of the current leadership to stabilize the region. When finally we demand attention, they would respond that our kin couldn’t give us what we demand from them. For now, the sociopolitical trajectories portend a bleak future. But for now, only time will tell.

Salisu Yusuf can be reached at salisuyusuf111@gmail.com.

By Abu Haneef 

It is true that the North and South have rotated the presidency from the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1999 until Jonathan truncated it in 2011 after the demise of Umaru Musa Yar’adua. Many have argued that it was practically challenging to stop an acting president from contesting just because of an unconstitutional gentleman agreement, which was put in place by not-so-gentle politicians to rotate the presidency between the North and the South. Although not a valid justification to scrap that agreement, the argument is not entirely incorrect; who could have stopped Jonathan if he wasn’t patriotic enough to put the country ahead of himself? No one.

All that is now history. But what isn’t history is how all the proponents of the rotational presidency during Jonathan are now speaking against rotation; in the very same manner, those that argued against the rotational presidency during Jonathan are now suddenly making a case for rotation. The way both sides exchanged arguments with the change of personalities proves that those arguments were never in favour of the reasons given in the first place. 

While there are some good arguments for and against the rotational presidency in Nigeria, there will never be a good argument for scrapping it when that benefits you, only to turn around and demand rotation when it does not. This double double-standard is against fair play. 

Now let us analyse the case. While the argument for the rotational presidency is valid on the grounds of national security and stability, there are many things wrong about how we are understanding and approaching the rotation—from its premises to our assumptions thereof and many things in between. 

Anyone who understands Nigeria’s politics knows that religion, rather than ethnogeography, is the biggest faultline, albeit with a bit of ethnogeographic connotations here and there. This explains why since 1999, almost all Northern Christians voted for Southern Christians (except where both contenders were Muslims, and even then, they preferred PDP simply for being “more Christian”), despite sharing the same geopolitical threats and opportunities with the Northern Muslims they rejected. Yet, notwithstanding this apparent reality, we chose to premise our rotation on ethnogeographical consideration rather than religion (I’m not making a case for religion here, I’m only analysing our presidential rotation). 

Now let us ask ourselves, what happens if we rotate the presidency to the South and a Muslim, backed by Northern voters, emerges as the president? He would have been a Southern president who would not give the South a sense of belonging. The same will have been the case if a Northern Christian emerges as president. So our current premise for rotation is faulty, and those responsible for it know this; they are only ashamed to premise our rotational presidency on religion because of the global stigma religion faces today. 

Another critical question we haven’t convincingly answered in Nigeria is population spread across Nigeria’s ethnogeographical constituents and religions. Doing this would have removed the heat generated on the polity by the many unrealistic demands currently put forward by all sections of the country. However, we have so many issues to solve, and the best way to start is to answer all the critical demographical questions we haven’t. Only then will every section understand its proper place in the scheme of things, as there are currently huge delusions by many country sections. 

Another problem with this rotation is our constitution, which does not recognise it. This is problematic because people at the opposite faultline can only surrender power based on trust. There is no guarantee that the other region will yield power according to agreed terms. We had seen that in 2011 when Jonathan contested against PDP’s zoning arrangement. Therefore, the question of constitutionality in rotating the presidency must be answered to address the current distrust in the polity. 

Another valid question to answer on presidential rotation is that of fairness, particularly with the way and manner we have seen many agitations for resource control, which led to the creation of 13% Derivation, Ministry of Niger Delta and Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC). Suppose we agree that they deserve more resources only because God planted those resources in their land. In that case, the North can also argue that they deserve to retain political power because the same God that chose to bless Niger Delta with hydrocarbon decided to bless the North with a larger population. Suppose it is fair for Niger Delta to demand resource control. In that case, it is certainly reasonable for the North to require strict adherence to the democratic principle of majority retaining power at all times. That is one consistency of truth we must not skip in our national discourse. 

Conclusively, I submit that the only thing correct about the rotational presidency we argue for or against is the idea of having or not having it, but everything else has either been misunderstood, refused to be understood or deliberately misrepresented. And in these tiny details and questions we repeatedly miss lies most of the solutions we seek elsewhere. 

Abu Haneef can be reached via imabuhaneef@gmail.com.