APC's Litmus Tests - Appreciation

[Salihu Lukman]

APC’s Litmus Tests - Appreciation

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

I hereby sincerely express appreciation and gratitude to God Almighty and our APC leaders for the successful Public Presentation of APC Litmus Tests: Nigerian Democracy and Politics of Change. In particular, I want to restate that the objective of the book is to contribute perspectives to APC leaders and members on challenges facing the party, government and the nation. As much as possible, effort is made to objectively analyse challenges and recommend responses.

 

It is gratifying to note that our leaders in APC, especially President Muhammadu Buhari have acknowledged these challenges and have been working to address them. Unlike politicians in other parties, especially the PDP who live in permanent denial of challenges faced by their parties and therefore do everything possible to reduce Nigerian democracy to electoral contest, APC leaders recognise that the foundation of every democracy is determined more by the scope of representation and responsiveness of political parties. Once parties are not representative and responsive to the interest of members, elected leaders on the platform of such a party cannot be representative or responsive to the interest of citizens.

 

APC leaders have been working to address these foundational issues of our democracy and APC’s Litmus Tests is a contribution to support initiatives of our leaders. All leaders and members of APC are therefore invited to engage challenges facing the party, government and the nation with every confidence and belief in the capacity of Nigerians to support every patriotic and nationalistic initiative. We much never allow the loud noise of selfish political entrepreneurs to hoodwink Nigerians into believing that our party and governments produced by our party have failed.

 

It will be a mockery of our political history to allow any narrative in the public space, which suggest that comparative to previous administrations since 1999, APC controlled administration led by President Muhammadu Buhari has failed. Like President Muhammadu Buhari himself has acknowledged, there are no doubt challenges facing the country, but no administration since 1999 has succeeded in completing projects, whether initiated by previous or current governments. Just on Thursday, June 10, 2021, President Buhari commissioned the Lagos – Ibadan railway, a project started and completed by his administration. And because leaders of PDP are shameless, they had the temerity to make a public statement calling on President Muhammadu Buhari to ‘stop taking credit for projects not initiated by him.’ May be they also want President Buhari and APC to acquire all their scandalous records, which include abandoning the construction of the PDP National Secretariat after mobilising billions on Naira.

 

PDP leaders and Nigerians should be reminded about the scandalous records of PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015. Part of it is already documented in the publication Power of Possibility & Politics of Change in Nigeria. Find attached the excerpt from that publication – Patently Political Fact, which illustrate graphically how efficient PDP was in mismanaging public resources. With such record and without any attempt to reform themselves, PDP leaders want to take advantage of the challenges facing Nigerians to win elections.

 

The challenge before all patriotic Nigerians is to ensure that Nigerian democracy is responsive to the need of citizens. This is beyond elections. This is what APC’s Litmus Tests is all about. APC’s Litmus Tests is an advocacy tool. It will be widely circulated among party leaders and members and also Nigerians interested in engaging national issues beyond the narrow prism of electoral politics. The electronic copy of APC’s Litmus Tests will be made public.

 

I am grateful to Progressive Governors for the opportunity to serve the party and our country in a very challenging environment. In particular, I am very grateful to His Excellency Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, our PGF Chairman for his leadership. I will remain indebted to all our party leaders, especially President Muhammadu Buhari and Asiwaju Bola Tinubu for creating the required environment for intellectual engagement in the APC. This hardly exist in other parties, including the PDP.

 

Our Caretaker Committee has succeeded in changing the toxic mood in the party. The Chairman, His Excellency Mai Mala Buni and all members of the Caretaker Committee should be commended for their selfless services. As we move into the final phase of reconstituting the leadership of our party, we must appeal to party leaders and members at all levels to respect and tolerate one another. The spirit of give and take must guide the process of leadership election at all levels.

 

Like the Caretaker Committee, the National Assembly led by His Excellency Ahmed Lawan and Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila has also created a new atmosphere of teamwork, both within members of the legislative arm as well as with the executive arm. Healthy inter and intra party legislative debates are now being conducted with higher degree of decorum. As APC members, we are gratified by the successes of the 9^th National Assembly.

 

May God Almighty enrich the wisdom of our leaders and guide them to produce a new leadership for the party that will be capable of meeting the expectations of party members and Nigerians.

 

This position does not represent the view of any APC Governor or the Progressive Governors Forum

 

Patently Political Facts

 

What has been the anti-corruption scorecards of successive governments since 1999? What are the achievements and challenges? What are the necessary reforms needed for an efficient, effective and result-oriented anti-corruption campaign? How is APC approaching the fight against corruption since 2015 different from how PDP has handled it between 1999 and 2015?

 

Many would argue that both PDP and APC are the same, which is not valid. Between 2006 and 2013 alone, it was reported that N1.34 trillion was stolen by about 50 people; N146.84 billion by 15 former State Governors; N654 billion by 11 people in business; N524 billion by 8 bankers; N146 billion by 12 federal and state civil servants; and N7 billion by 4 former Ministers.

 

How have the nation’s anti-corruption agencies fared with respect to high levels of theft of public resources? What could be the estimated scorecards of PDP and APC? Looking at how both parties are managing themselves and how they handle the business of government, here are some interesting findings.

 

·         First, INEC audit report for APC and PDP for the 2015 general elections reported by Premium Times of May 25, 2018, revealed that PDP spent N2.9 billion, while APC spent N4.8 billion. The APC’s audit report, filed by Mai-Alheri and Co., disclosed that the party derived its 2015 income from the sale of nomination forms which generated N329.5 million, while donations and gifts generated N275 million. The APC also spent N296.3 million on administration, N56.5 million on repairs and maintenance, N485,800 on welfare and N15.4 million on financial charges.

 

·         The audit report further noted that while the APC spent N2.9 billion on the 2015 polls, it generated only N604.5 million in the same calendar year, leaving a deficit of N2.3 billion. The APC disclosed that this was covered by its surplus from 2014 when it earned about N6.4 billion and spent only N4 billion. The report highlighted that the party’s fixed assets including office equipment were valued at N5.1 million, APC’s Data Centre equipment at N300,000, furniture and fittings at N6.8 million, motor vehicles at N20 million and library books N3.4 million, all totaling about N35.8 million.

 

·         In the case of PDP's audit report, prepared by Paul Akinade Adebimpe and Co., it showed the party's income for 2015 derived from donations and levies totaling N200 million and other expenses amounting to N599.2 million. While the PDP spent N4.8 billion on the 2015 elections, it also spent N1.7 billion on administration, N2.8 billion on its National Secretariat and N54 million on other financial expenses. Unlike the APC, the PDP had a surplus of N9.4 billion from 2014, as it spent only N3.6 billion from the N13 billion it reportedly earned.

 

·         Ahead of the 2015 elections, as a ruling party in control of the Federal Government, on Saturday, December 20, 2014, the PDP organised fundraising dinner and generated whooping N21 billion for former President Goodluck Jonathan’s 2015 re-elections campaign. Although owing to public criticisms, and of course legal implications, the PDP subsequently denied that the fundraising dinner was meant to support former President Jonathan’s re-election campaign. The N13 billion, therefore may be the net earning accrued to the PDP from the fundraising dinner.

 

Let us for the purpose of analysis assume that the reported N13 billion represents both what was redeemed from the pledged N21 billion at the December 20, 2014, PDP fundraising dinner and all other incomes received. This leads us to the second issue, which relates to the construction of a new National Secretariat for the PDP. Nigerians may again recall that on November 14, 2008, the then National Chairman of PDP, Chief Vincent Ogbulafor, organised a fundraising dinner in Abuja to raise N10 billion in the first instance, to finance the construction of a 12-storey new PDP National Secretariat, located on Muhammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja. Quoting Premium Times, Sahara Reporters of January 22, 2017, reported that the dinner, which was chaired by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, then Vice President, raised over N6 billion for the project.

 

Some of the donors include Mr. Femi Otedola who donated the highest amount of N1 billion and his late father, Chief Michael Otedola, who donated N25 million. Other big donors included Alh. Aliko Dangote who offered to supply cement worth N3 billion; the PDP National Working Committee, N1 billion; Mrs. Bola Shagaya, N25 million; Strabag Construction Company N100 million; Ogun State Government, N10 million; and an anonymous donor, N100 million. Late President Umaru Yar’Adua and his Vice President, Dr. Jonathan, contributed N527,205 and N454,735, representing 15 per cent of their basic salaries, respectively. Each of the party’s 28 State Governors at the time was reportedly levied N50 million by the party.

 

The contract for the PDP National Secretariat project was awarded to BNL Limited. The party paid an initial sum of N2 billion while BNL Limited was billed to complete construction of the National Secretariat project in 126 weeks. Sahara Reporters further reported in January 2017 that because of construction variations over the years, the project cost rose to N16 billion from 2008 estimated N10 billion out of which the party had paid N6 billion before work stopped.

 

In contrast to PDP, the APC has already acquired the property located at No. 40 Blantyre Street, Wuse 2, Abuja to house the APC National Secretariat. The APC first rented the property in 2013, and in 2016, the Chief Oyegun leadership of the party bought the property from the owner at the cost of N2.5 billion and agreed to make payment in instalments. So far, as at March 2019, the party has been able to pay more than N500 million with about N1.9 billion outstanding. Significantly, this has been achieved without any fundraising funfair.

 

The narrative of the PDP National Secretariat project underscores the reality of PDP’s financial recklessness in managing the affairs of the Federal Government for the 16 years it governed the country (1999 – 2015). Allegations of mismanagement and corruption were frequent and unfortunately reduced to public noise. For instance, in 2012, following the January national protest against increases in the prices of petroleum products, there were allegations of oil subsidy fraud. The House of Representatives eventually had to set up the Hon. Farouk Lawal ad-hoc Committee to investigate the actual subsidy requirements of the country.

 

At the end of the investigation, the Committee reported that “contrary to official figure of subsidy payment of N1.3 Trillion, the Accountant-General of the Federation put forward a figure of N1.6 Trillion, the CBN N1.7 Trillion, while the Committee established subsidy payment of N2.587 Trillion as at December 2011, amounting to more than 900% over the appropriated sum of N245 Billion. This figure of N2.587 Trillion is based on the CBN figure of N844.944 billion paid to NNPC, in addition to another figure of N847.942 billion reflected as withdrawals by NNPC from the excess crude naira account, as well as the sum of N894.201 billion paid as subsidy to Marketers. The figure of N847.942 billion quoted above strongly suggests that NNPC might have been withdrawing from two sources especially when double withdrawals were also reflected both in 2009 and 2010.”

 

The report of the 2012 subsidy probe threw up issues of accountability especially on the part of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) with the strong charge that “NNPC feasted on the Federation Account to bloat the subsidy payable, some of the marketers were involved in claiming subsidy on products not supplied.” In particular, the report also indicted the Accountant-General of the Federation that served in 2009 for making payments in equal instalments of N999 million for 128 times, totaling N127.872 billion.

 

Following the release of the House of Representatives subsidy investigation report, the Chairman of the ad-hoc Committee, Hon. Farouk Lawal was reportedly enmeshed in a $3 million bribe scandal allegedly demanded from Mr. Femi Otedola, a major oil marketer.

 

There were also claims and counterclaims of missing oil revenues. In October 2013 for instance, former CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi alleged that $49.8 billion from the sales of crude oil between January 2012 – July 2013 was missing from NNPC accounts. Following series of audits and reconciliation meetings involving NNPC, CBN and Ministry of Finance, the former CBN Governor reported the missing amount to be $20 billion while the former Minister of Finance, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala reported $10.8 billion. On February 20, 2014, former President Goodluck Jonathan suspended Mallam Sanusi from office over allegations of financial misconduct. After the suspension of Mallam Sanusi, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) confirmed that about $20 billion was missing.

 

Throughout the tenure of the Jonathan administration (2010 – 2015), allegations of corruption against public officers were regular features. In 2012, there was the case of Police Pension Task Force, which was investigated by the Senate Joint Committee on Public Service and Establishment and State and Local Government Administration. Some of the revelations include withdrawal of N24 billion for payment of pension that required about N3.5 billion — the Chairman of the Pension Review Task Team, Alh. Abdulrasheed Maina, informed the Senate Committee of two accounts in Lagos where police pension funds were lodged, each amounting to N21 and N24 billion. Alh. Maina reported daily withdrawals of various sums of money from these accounts ranging from N200 to N300 million. A total sum of N273.9 billion was reported by the Senate Committee to have been looted in 6 years from the police pension fund.

 

Other cases of corruption charges against public officials under PDP (1999 – 2015) include the case of $180 million Halliburton; $1.1 billion Malabo Oil; Princess Stella Oduak N255 million Aviation Ministry bulletproof cars; N10 billion jet scam involving the Petroleum Minister, Mrs. Dizieni Alison Madueke; and House of Representatives Capital Market probe; and N360 billion service-wide scam.

 

What is the anti-corruption scorecard of the APC since it took over the Federal Government in 2015? The Acting EFCC Chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, in December 2018 told journalists that N794 billion, $261 million, £1.1 million, €8.2 million, 86,500 CFA and 407 properties were recovered.  Also, Mr. Magu disclosed that EFCC had secured 703 convictions. Other similar cases include the recovery of N93,558,000, $530,087, £25,970 and €5,680 from 5 serving judges (Justices Adeniyi Ademola, Kabir Auta, Muazu Pindiga, Mohammed Tsamiya and I. A.  Umezulike) following sting operations by operatives of Department of Security Services (DSS) in October 2016.

 

There was also the case of $2.1 billion arms deal involving Col. (Rtd) Sambo Dasuki, former National Security Adviser under the Jonathan’s PDP administration. The breakdown showed that N1.5 billion was paid to Alh. Bashir Yuguda, which was reportedly disbursed in respective sums to the following PDP chieftains - N600 million to PDP 2015 election campaign Contact and Mobilization chairmen (Chief Bode George, Amb. Yerima Abdullahi, Mr. Peter Odili, Alh. Attahiru Bafarawa, Chief Jim Nwobodo and Col. (Rtd) Ahmadu Ali); N300 million to BAM properties linked to Alh. Bello Haliru, former PDP National Chairman; N200 million to Alh. Bello Sarkin Yaki, former PDP Kebbi State 2015 governorship candidate; N100 million to Alh. Mahmud Shinkafi, former PDP Zamfara State Governor; and N100 million to Dalhatu Limited linked to Alh. Attahiru Bafarawa.

 

Other disbursements were N750 million to Reliance Referral Hospital Limited for special prayers; N380 million to support re-election of PDP members of House of Representatives; N550 million to Thisday Newspaper allegedly as compensation for attacks on the newspaper’s offices in Kaduna and Abuja in 2012; N120 million to Nduka Obaigbena allegedly as compensation for copies of various newspapers seized in June 2014; N170 million for the purchase of four-bedroom duplex; N260 million paid to Chief Tony Anenih; N345 million paid to Sen. Iyorchia Ayu; and N90 million for Dasuki’s son’s house.

 

There was also the discovery of $9.7 million by the EFCC in May 2018 and £74,000 from Mr. Andrew Yakubu, former Group Managing Director of NNPC concealed in a building in Kaduna. Similarly, in April 2017, the EFCC discovered sums of $43,449,947, £27,800 and N23,218,000 in Ikoyi apartment linked to Amb. Ayodele Oke, the DG of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). Around the same period, there was the reported N272 million “grass cutting” contract awarded by the former Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF), Engr. Babachir David Lawal to companies allegedly owned by him.

 

There was, of course, the case of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, who did not declare the $3 million lodged in five accounts that belonged to him, which led to his suspension from office and subsequent conviction on April 18, 2019 by the Code of Conduct Tribunal, stripping him of all offices he earlier occupied, forfeiture of the money in the five accounts he failed to declare and banning him from holding public office for 10 years.

 

From these accounts, what is very clear is that while under PDP’s sixteen (16) years in control of the Federal Government, the country witnessed long lists of suspected cases of corruption, endless investigations, low convictions, and hardly any recovery, in the case of four (4) years of APC, it is a different narrative. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself as best summarised by the EFCC Chairman’s account of the recoveries so far made which comprise N871 billion, 407 mansions and 703 convictions.

 

A realistic estimation of the differences between the PDP and APC is represented by how the two parties handled the challenge of acquiring their National Secretariats. After ten years of work, the PDP abandoned the 12-storey National Secretariat project having expended over N6 billion. In contrast, within three years of existence (between 2013 and 2016) as a party, the APC was able to acquire a National Secretariat at the cost of N2.5 billion and has paid more than N500 million with about N1.9 billion outstanding.

 

A second reality is the cost of campaigns. INEC’s Audit Reports indicated that PDP had spent only N2.9 billion while APC spent N4.8 billion for the 2015 campaigns.  Just looking at the $2.1 billion (or about N756 billion) Dasuki arms deal money, which substantially was expended to fund the 2015 PDP campaigns, it is clear that the N2.9 billion was just a fraction of what was actually spent. In fact, Premium Times of May 25, 2018, reported former President Obasanjo, at a press conference on Thursday, May 10, 2018, disclosing that PDP spent almost $3bn (or more than N1 trillion) on 2015 elections.

 

Related to campaign funds, the speculated expenditures of PDP Presidential aspirants at October 6, 2018, Port Harcourt Convention would readily come to mind. According to media reports, Alh. Atiku Abubakar, one of the PDP Presidential Aspirants spent about $5,000 (or N1.8 million) on each of the over 3,000 delegates at the convention. It was also speculated that Governor Aminu Waziri Tambuwal with the support of Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike spent about $10,000 (or N3.6 million) on each delegate.

 

In the case of APC, beyond logistical costs of organising the direct primaries in the States, the Abuja National Convention of October 6, 2018, which was incurred by the party, President Buhari who emerged as the Presidential candidate of the party did not incur any personal cost. This, however, may not apply to other candidates at governorship and other lower levels. There were undoubtedly reported cases of vote buying incidences also in APC, but hardly anywhere near the scale in PDP.

 

Underpinning extravagant costs for campaign expenditures as reported in the case of PDP require that we ask some questions: are campaign donations just generous support? Alternatively, are they business investment? Looking at the reality that some of the donors to PDP projects (both Secretariat project and campaigns) also feature prominently in some of the reported corruption cases such as the subsidy fraud, for instance, it is easy to make the connection that in reality these donations are business investments to be recouped. 

 

With high incidences of corruption, it is only logical that national development will remain elusive. This explains for instance why despite higher prices of Nigerian crude in the international market between 1999 and 2014, at more than $100 per barrel, producing an average 2.1 million barrels per day, Nigerian media quoted Mr. Waziri Adio, Executive Secretary of Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) indicating that although Nigeria earn N77.348 trillion from oil between 1999 and 2016, ‘Nigeria has one of the lowest natural resource revenue savings in the world.’

 

In contrast, since 2015, the highest price of Nigerian crude recorded was around $74. In November 2018, a report of Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) indicated that Nigeria earned N1.68 trillion from oil between 2015 and 2017.

 

The temptation to ignore some of these realities could be high especially given a politically charged atmosphere. Partly on account of such temptations, some leading PDP chieftains and their apologists have been making claims that some of the completed projects by the President Buhari administration were projects initiated by the PDP past administrations. While it may be true that some of these projects were started by PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015, the fact is, if PDP had remained in government, these projects would not have been completed. They will simply have been subjected to contract variations, that would entail the release of more money which may end up in private accounts of public officials and PDP leaders. With such scenario, it would be difficult to expect any tangible progress towards completing the projects.

 

This would have been the story of the following projects: Abuja – Kaduna; Itakpe – Ajaokuta – Warri; Lagos – Abeokuta – Ibadan; Abuja Metro rail lines; Port Harcourt and Abuja airports; 2^nd Niger bridge; Abuja – Kaduna – Kano highway; Ilorin – Jebba Road; Abuja – Keffi – Lafia – Makurdi roads; Suleija – Minna road; and so many others. This is in addition to other social investments in school feeding, N-Power, tradermoni, and several other initiatives. For the first time in the history of the country, around August 2018, power generation was reported to have reached 7,000 Mega Watts. Maximum output under the PDP was below 4,000 MW.

 

Also, unlike under the PDP administration when billions of dollars disappeared from NNPC accounts, under the President Buhari APC led government nothing of the sort has happened. In addition to FAAC allocations to States, Paris Club refunds amounting to N760.18 billion have been paid to the 36 States governments, as bail outs and fiscal support to enable the State governments pay salaries and meet their contractual obligations as at December 2018.

 

Many PDP leaders and apologists will continue to claim that the projects being commissioned by the President Buhari administration as their achievements. Arguing that these are PDP achievements would only have some comic entertainment value. Maybe Nigerians should accept that they are genuinely PDP’s achievements, in which case it would be expedient to ask PDP leaders, when will they be commissioning their new 12-storey National Secretariat? Perhaps, in order to speed up work on the 12-storey PDP National Secretariat, the PDP leaders can invite the APC leadership to take over management of the contract to help them complete it. Without any new valuation and with the same contractors, at the same cost of N10 billion, with only outstanding payment of N4 billion to the contractors, the APC leadership should be able to get the project executed given its managerial capacity to execute projects to completion.

 

It is such a patently political fact that PDP’s record in public service only disburses public resources to personal accounts of public officials and party leaders, while APC can disburse resources to contractors and ensure the completion of infrastructural projects.

 

Excepts from the book Power of Possibility & Politics of Change in Nigeria pages 125 - 132

 

 

-- 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Director General

Progressive Governors Forum

79 Nelson Mandela

Asokoro, Abuja

http://www.pgfnigeria.org

 

 

 

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigeria’s Democracy and Challenges of Federalism: Neglected Task of Political Parties’ Development

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

Paper Presented at International Conference on 50 Years Post Nigerian Civil War: Issues, Challenges and Prospects towards National Integration, Justice, Peace and Security organised July 5 – 7, 2021 by Centre for Health and Allied Legal and Demographical Development Research and Training, Nnamdi Azikwe University, Awka, Anambra State

 

Introduction

 

Let me thank Prof. Charles O. Esimone, FAS, FPSN, Vice Chancellor of Nnamdi Azikwe University and all management team of the university for initiating this conference, which is to review issues, challenges and prospects towards national integration, justice, peace and security, more than fifty years after the Nigerian civil war. We must commend the foresight of the leadership of the Centre for Health and Allied Legal and Demographical Development Research and Training of the University for facilitating the conference. It is quite an honour to be invited to join other eminent scholars to contribute towards generating recommendations that would assist to explore how we can strengthen peaceful co-existence in our dear country, Nigeria.

 

There cannot be a better time than now to organise this conference. This is largely because politics has taken over almost everything in Nigeria, and almost everybody is interpreting all challenges based on narrow political choices. It is quite unfortunate that with such polluted political atmosphere, our history as a nation is being impaired and, almost every day, rewritten to serve narrow political interests. Sadly, younger generation of Nigerians are being misled to believe that ethnic and religious factors are the foundational issues for guaranteeing national integration, justice and security. No doubt, ethnic and religious factors are very important and must be recognised and respected. But making them the foundational issues for guaranteeing national integration, justice and security is deceptively self-serving.

 

It was Kwameh Anthony Appiah, a British-Ghanaian philosopher, in the book, The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identity who argued that “Philosophers contribute to public discussions of moral and political life, …, not by telling you what to think but by providing an assortment of concepts and theories you can use to decide what to think for yourself.” In our context in Nigeria, we have more than fair share of assorted concepts and theories of what we can use to decide what to think of ourselves. In most cases, all our concepts and theories are more about justifying why things are bad and why Nigeria is ‘failing’ and some have even gone a step ahead to argue that Nigeria has ‘failed’.

 

Perhaps, it is important from the start to make the point that my presentation will deviate from the doomy approach of presenting long list of sad narratives and heaping every blame on our political leaders. As much as it is important to recognise all our leadership challenges, we should do so based on the capacity to take responsibility and to bolster the confidence of Nigerians, especially our younger generation, that as a nation, we can overcome our challenges. While recognising our challenges, we should be able to acknowledge all the important little progress we have been able to make as a nation.

 

To do this, I want to focus my presentation on the theme Nigeria’s Democracy and Challenges of Federalism: Neglected Task of Political Parties’ Development. If anything, the collapse of democracy, First Republic, in 1966 was the first launchpad of the Nigerian civil war. Secondly, with the emergence of first military government under Gen. J. T. U. Aguiyi Ironsi, Nigeria’s federalism went through several years of distortions. One of such distortions was the infamous Unification Decree No. 34 of 1966, which abolished the federal system of government based on the claim of discouraging tribalism and promoting national reconstruction.

 

Almost all the military governments we had between 1966 and 1999, more than seven, undertook some reform measures that altered (distorted) the configuration of Nigeria’s federalism. Combined, these experiences contributed substantial parts of the assortment of concepts and theories of what we are using today to think of ourselves as Nigerians. Each military administration had variant of its own propositions, which in one way or the other created additional challenges to issues of national integration, justice, peace and security.

 

If the claim is that military governments over a period of more than thirty years have created conditions that distorted Nigeria’s federalism, how has democratic experience over the last years (more than twenty years) handled the task of rebuilding the nation’s federalism? To what extent is the issue of rebuilding federalism addressing the challenges of peaceful co-existence? Beyond the question of presenting candidates for elections, have Nigerian political parties prioritise the issue of rebuilding the nation’s federalism based on the cardinal principles of promoting peaceful co-existence and national integration?

 

Democracy, Political Parties and Challenges of Federalism

 

Since the overthrow of the First Republic in 1966 and the civil war that followed between 1967 and 1970, ethnic relations, especially between the so-called Hausa-Fulani Northern part of the country and Igbos in the South-East region of the country has been twitchy. This is also the case predominantly between both the Hausa-Fulanis and Igbos on the one hand and Yorubas in the South-West, as well as with the Ijaws, Ibibios, Efik, and other ethnic groups in the South-South region of the country. Tense relations between our ethnic groups is responsible for why at different times and in many instances, there are cases of ethnic and communal violence, often resulting in ethnic profiling of criminals.

  

Problems associated with ethnic profiling get compounded by over centralisation of governance especially during periods of military rule. Frustrations associated with failed political transitions of the military, both under Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Sani Abacha between 1985 and 1998 further compounded challenges of peaceful co-existence and national integration and have remained sources of national pain. Combined, these are unfortunately major reasons for sectional agitations, which considerably constitute challenges to current federal structure as provided under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended.

 

Although problems of political tension between ethnic groups in the country could be said to be volatile since the 1966 military intervention, reckless and brazenly repressive conducts by the past military leadership heightened ethnic tension in the country. Twice, between 1985 and 1998, the political transition programme initiated by the military was disrupted with hardly good justifiable reasons. Even when the process, in June 1993, was leading to the emergence of a President who would have successfully won votes from all sections of the country, notwithstanding the fact that both the candidate, Chief M. K. O. Abiola and his running mate, Amb. Babagana Kingibe, were both Muslims, the military leadership of Gen. Babangida went ahead to annul the election without any credible reason.

 

The annulment of June 12, 1993 election further worsened ethnic relations in the country such that although the elections produced one of best electoral results that confirms there is still a good hope for national unity and peaceful coexistence, campaigns for its actualisation sharpened divisions along ethnic lines. This was aggravated by the tight-fisted political transition of the late Gen. Sani Abacha administration between 1993 and 1998. Chief Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993 election spent the remaining parts of his life between 1993 and July 1998 under arrest. 

 

Part of the challenge that require proper attention in the country is the need to resolve problems of mismanagement of the country’s transition from military rule to the current Fourth Republic. Without recalling all the unfortunate details of the problems created by the annulment of the June 12, 1993, it is important to recognise that more than 20 years into the current Fourth Republic, the tension created in the country are far from being resolved. Prior to 2015, the closest we came to addressing these issues, as a nation, is the appointment of the Justice Oputa Oputa Human Right Violation Investigation Commission under former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 1999 and the 2014 National Conference under former President Goodluck Jonathan. Of course, in 2005, there was the National Political Reform Conference under former President Obasanjo, which eventually became embroiled in the controversy around former President Obasanjo’s Third Term agenda and as a result all the recommendations were therefore never considered. 

 

Inability to address issues of ethnic tension in the country has continued to inflame all manner of political crisis. Coupled with widespread systematic weakening of governance institutions, especially on matters of guaranteeing the security of lives and property of Nigerians, issues of role of political leaders in addressing the challenge became a major political issue. The problem of insurgency in the North-East and the spate of suicide bombings by Boko Haram terrorists between 2010 and 2015 compounded the task of managing ethnic relations thereby creating serious security challenges in the country. Before 2015, the Boko Haram insurgents were controlling most parts of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe States. Weak response and excessive politicisation of our national security challenges under former President Jonathan administration, including the false accusation that opposition politicians were sponsoring Boko Haram, lower the approval rating of the Jonathan administration in the country, which significantly contributed to its defeat in 2015.

 

Part of the challenge of ensuring that Nigeria’s democracy prioritise the issue of rebuilding federalism is the narrow focus on regional representation in governments especially in terms of who emerges as president. Promoted largely by Nigerian elites who most times position themselves to emerge as the main beneficiaries of such campaign, the major focus is reduced to which region of the country produces the President. Whether such President is able to respond to challenges of the region he/she comes from is another matter entirely.

 

The narrow focus on individual candidates has so far created a situation whereby political parties are nothing more than platforms for contesting elections. Specific commitments of parties to issues of federalism are taken for granted. Consequently, the true substance or content of politicians and how they will handle the task of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism when elected, which will determine policy choices may only be speculated based on estimation of past experiences of candidates. The truth, however, is that the dynamic of public life is completely different and no matter the level of experiences, factors that would influence decisions of political leaders when in office are far more complex than what their past suggest.

 

Part of the assumptions that democracy is founded on the logic that political parties should have manifestos, which should highlight ideological orientations and commitments of leaders and members, is just redundant in our context. Any close observer will recognise that although there is a document called party manifesto, party members, including leaders are hardly committed, in fact, many are hardly conversant with provisions of their party’s manifesto. To a large extent, this account for why initiating policies and programmes based on provisions of the manifesto is weak. How many party members, including leaders have gone through the party manifesto? How many party leaders can develop perspectives, which will highlight policy choices in lines with provisions of the party’s manifesto?

 

The consequence is that the only political contest that take place is electoral contest, which is just about personalities. To go beyond electoral contests means that debate on perspectives should highlight possible choices open to governments. To what extent are political parties able to project the demands of Nigerians especially in terms of regional representations? Beyond the personality of candidates and their ethnic or regional backgrounds, what are the other demands of Nigerians from the six regions? How can any candidate from any of the regions reconcile all these demands and make Nigeria home to all ethnic groups in the country?

 

The Issues – Campaign for Restructuring or True Federalism

 

It was Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson in the book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, that argued No two societies create the same institutions; they will have distinct customs, different systems of property rights, and different ways of dividing a killed animal or loot stolen from another group. Some will recognise the authority of elders, others will not; some will achieve some degree of political centralisation early on, but not others. Societies are constantly subject of economic and political conflicts that is resolved in different ways because of specific historical differences, the role of individuals, or just random factors.

 

This means that the demands of the different sections of Nigeria in terms of the details of what Nigeria’s federalism should be, will be different. The extent to which therefore these details are clarified by political parties based on which individual leaders of political parties commit themselves to implementing policy proposals that unite Nigerians are hardly the issue. As a result, in 1999, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) succeeded in producing former President Olusegun Obasanjo as President of the country largely in order to pacify the Yoruba’s in the South West without any expressed specific commitment to resolving any of the broader challenges of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism. What the emergence of former President Obasanjo for instance meant to other regions – the three regions in the North, South-East and South-South was simply taken for granted.

 

Perhaps on account of the need to end military rule and return to democracy, especially given the anger against the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election, which was adjudged to have been won by Chief M. K. O. Abiola, a Yoruba from the South-West, the elite consensus in the country was to allow the South-West to produce the President. This was mainly responsible for why the two Presidential candidates that contested the 1999 election, former President Obasanjo and Chief Olu Falea, were both Yorubas from the South-West. How the emergence of former President Obasanjo was able to respond to agitations of Yorubas from the South-West is completely another matter.

 

To considerable extent, former President Obasanjo’s era could be said to be a period of lost opportunity for Nigeria in terms of taking advantage of the return to democratic rule to commence the process of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism. Inability to use the new democratic opening to commence national negotiations to rebuild federalism reduces democracy to electoral contests. With hardly any exception, ahead of every election, almost everyone become sucked into the politics of ethnic contests. Every government initiative and almost all actions of political leaders get interpreted in ethnic terms.

 

The best description of this reality was provided by Graeme Gerrard and Benard Murphy in the book How to think Politically when they argued that “We assume that citizens should be informed. But they also need to be knowledgeable and even wise. Today we are inundated with information – but knowledge and wisdom remain as scarce as ever. Thanks to the miracle of digital technology, we are drowning in oceans of data, facts and opinions. What we need now is not more information but more insight, not more data but more perspective, not more opinions but more wisdom. After all, much of what is called information is actually misinformed, and most opinions fall short of true knowledge, let alone wisdom. Even a superficial glance at the state of contemporary politics will dispel any illusion that the explosion of information has led to wiser citizens or politicians or improved quality of public debate. If anything, misinformation is winning out over knowledge.”

 

There is no better description of our national reality defined by ethnic tension and the politics of hatred. While it is true that ethnic politics will always be part of our national life, it is important that Nigerians are able to engage beyond the simplistic issue of which ethnic group or region produces the President of Nigeria. As important as that should be, it must be supported with specific governance reform proposals aimed at facilitating regional developments. Why should any region or ethnic group produce a President and at the end of the tenure of such a President, there is nothing in terms of physical development of the region to justify that such a region has produced the President of Nigeria? For instance, what was the benefit to the South-West throughout the eight-year of former President Obasanjo? Or what was the benefit to the South-South to justify the six-year tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan?

 

Given our political history and all the accumulated grievances of sections of the country, controlling and managing ethnic tension is a determining electoral factor, which should be taken seriously by all political leaders irrespective of ethnic background. On the other hand, no matter how well a leader performs, once such a leader failed to meet the expectations of sections of the country on account of poor management of ethnic relations, the leader may only be remembered based on all the unpopular choices he or she made while in power. For instance, President Obasanjo is only remembered today for the Third Term agenda he attempted to impose on the nation. Former President Jonathan is mostly associated with problems of insecurity. In the particular case of former President Jonathan, not even the case of convening the 2014 National Conference and his magnanimous decision to concede defeat in the 2015 election even before INEC declared the results surpass the poor management of security as the defining credentials of his leadership in the rating of many Nigerians.

 

Ethnic Tension and Challenges of National Unity

 

If the eight-year tenure of former President Obasanjo and by extension the sixteen-year tenure of PDP is regarded as period of lost opportunity, to what extent is the current era of President Buhari and APC setting the right agenda to rebuild Nigeria’s federalism? To what extent, for instance, are President Buhari’s initiatives a reflection of the commitment of the APC and its leadership? Perhaps, being a party envisioned to be social democratic with the principles of promoting all-inclusive government for the development of policies and programmes that would improve the lives of Nigerian citizens, regardless of ethnicity and religious orientation, it could be argued that APC and its leadership are as committed as President Buhari to these issues. But it is one thing to make such a claim and entirely another thing to justify it with reference to actions and pronouncements of APC leaders.

 

As things are today, President Muhammadu Buhari had done what no leader has ever done in the political history of this country in terms of attempt to respond to issues of ethnic tension because of past injustice under military rule. This is to the effect that on June 6, 2018, he acknowledged that annulment of June 12, 1993 election was an act of injustice and proceeded to declare June 12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day. Since 1999, only South-West governments controlled by the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) and later ACN, observed June 12 as Democracy Day. The Federal Government and all other state governments outside the South-West only recognise May 29 as the Democracy Day. Although being a Hausa-Fulani, which is the ethnic group accused of perpetrating the June 12 injustice, President Muhammadu Buhari took the bold decision of declaring June 12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day. In addition, he conferred the highest national honour Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), on late Chief MKO Abiola, the standard bearer of the June 12, 1993 elections posthumously as well as also publicly apologising to the family of late Chief Abiola. 

 

In taking these bold steps, President Buhari was unambiguously clear that the objective was to correct the injustice of the past. This was contained in his speech while presenting members of Chief Abiola’s family with the award of posthumous national honour when he stressed, “We cannot rewind the past, but we can at least assuage our feelings, recognise that a wrong has been committed and resolve to stand firm now and ease the future for the sanctity of free elections. Nigerians will no longer tolerate such perversion of justice. This retrospective and posthumous recognition is only a symbolic token of redress and recompense for the grievous injury done to the peace and unity of our country.”

 

Alh. Babagana Kingibe, the running mate to Chief Abiola and another veteran of the struggle for the actualisation of the result of June 12, 1993 elections in the country, late Chief Gani Fawehinmi were conferred the national honour of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON). These are important milestones, which the government and our leaders would have consolidated by activating the processes of considering other governance initiatives to manage problems of volatile ethnic politics. 

 

In addition to issues of injustice arising from June 12, 1993 annulment, subsisting challenges of the civil war of 1967 – 1970 in relation to political participation especially in terms of leadership of Nigeria are still there. Issues of leadership contest will continue to be a permanent factor, not just for people of the South-East but for all sections of Nigeria. How political parties and leaders are able to develop framework for political negotiations is a major challenge. The question is, would political negotiations for leadership integrate issues of regional development based on which all political leaders are able expeditiously implement? The extent to which people are able to own development initiatives and correspondingly therefore justify political choices are very critical. Politics will be meaningless if political choices are not correlated with issues of development.

 

Addressing issues of representation in government and challenges bordering on political participation are functions of negotiations and ability to produce compromises that will further expand the scope of participation of Nigerians from the South-East in Nigerian politics. This is also largely a question of the ability of leaders from the South-East to win the trust and confidence of political leaders from other parts of the country.

 

The excellent reality is that the people of the South-East are very much ahead of politics. Both in business and other private endevours, they are about the only ethnic group that have successful been able to explore and harness their vast resourceful potentials in every part of the country. The entrepreneurial capacity of the Igbos is very well located in the remotest part of Nigeria across every section. To some extent, political negotiations in Nigeria is below the standard of the desire of the average citizen from South-East. When for instance leadership negotiation is reduced to emergence of individuals as President from specific regions without recognising the progress made by citizens from that region to integrate themselves in every part of the country shortchanges Nigerians and therefore present a false narrative. Most importantly, political elites need to be more representative beyond personal ambitions for leadership.

 

All the clamour for representation should be grounded around the unique capacity of Nigerians to excel and make every part of Nigeria their home. When elites reduce issues of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism based on opportunistic clamour of emergence of Nigerian President from a section or simplistic access to public appointments, they downgrade the resourcefulness of citizens. The rising wave of divisive, secessionist and separatist agitations that promote ethnic and regional identities is also completely at variance with the desires and capacity of citizens from the region where such campaign originate to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials. Nigerian politics and political negotiations should be about supporting citizens to excel irrespective of whoever is the President of Nigeria.

 

Partly because political negotiations in Nigeria is not about supporting citizens to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials, we are today confronted with a reality whereby even when government is able to initiate and implement policies that support citizens to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials, so long as it does not serve the narrow interests of political elites, it is dismissed and rubbished. This is sadly the case in many respects confronting us as a nation today. As a result, we are witnessing the resurgence of desperate youth groups promoting ethnic and regional secessionist campaigns in the country from the South-East and South-West, all because political elites are mismanaging processes of political negotiations in the country based on narrow personal ambitions.

 

The challenge, therefore, is for political parties and leaders to rise above personal ambitions for leadership and make issues of national unity a priority for political negotiations. While recognising that as a nation, Nigeria has so many challenges, the resolution of the challenges rest with the development of our democracy and with it, the ascendency of structured processes of consultations, negotiations and agreements facilitate by our political parties. Inability to prioritise issues of national unity based on selfish personal ambitions of political elites have made politicians to in many respects accommodate, tolerate and impliedly accept secessionist agitations in Nigeria today. In the same vein, Nigerian political parties hardly regard the issue of negotiating national unity and peaceful co-existence of all the different components of the Nigerian federation an important political issue. This negligence has resulted in the resurgence of separatist agitations in the country.

 

For instance, since 2016, the separatist group of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu have been campaigning for the creation of Biafra. The South Eastern part of the country became the centre of activities for the group. There is hardly any counter political mobilsation by any political groups from the South-East. Similarly, there were instances of youth groups from Northern Nigeria issuing threats to Igbo citizens in Northern Nigeria to leave the North, allegedly in response to IPOB campaigns. Although many leaders and groups from these regions intervened to ensure that the situation didn’t degenerate into violent conflict, there was hardly any conscious effort to mobilise citizens against activities of these groups.

 

Unfortunately, however, political tension associated with ethnoreligious activities of groups such as IPOB and so-called coalition of Northern groups still continue to dominates the polity. In recent times, secessionist campaigns led by Sunday Igboho to mobilise for so-called Odudua Nation in the South-West have started. Noting that the IPOB campaign for a ‘Biafra Nation’ in the South-East is already launching attacks on government structures, especially police stations, thereby killing police personnel and other innocent citizens, it is worrisome that secessionist campaigns by self-acclaimed regional leaders is weakly being responded to by regional political leaders.

 

Resurgence of ethnic and regional secessionist campaigns by extremist groups are being made against the background of rising insecurity in the country. No doubt issues of insecurity are challenges which Nigerian politics and leaders must address. To what extent, are political elites united in addressing challenges of insecurity will be a critical determining factor for success. Sadly, rather than political elites uniting to address challenges of insecurity, personal ambitions for leadership are being used to further escalate the situation. Most of our political elites are positioning themselves to take advantage of rising wave of insecurity as negotiation factors for next leadership of Nigeria.

 

There is the need to appeal to political leaders in Nigeria that at the core of the forces tearing the fabrics of national unity and coherence is a contestation of nationhood, the true meaning of citizenship for many Nigerians and the perception that Nigeria’s federal system has not been fundamentally reformed to assure the constituent parts of the country of inclusiveness. These are genuine cumulative grievances from Nigeria’s colonial and post-colonial history of bad governance and manipulation of differences. These are political problems that need to be confronted with a demonstration of political will at the highest level and across the spectrum of the political leadership.

 

Despite the deep-seated challenges of the economy and insecurity, which the APC government inherited, democracy offers an opportunity for addressing all the nation’s numerous challenges including regional inequality and the distortions in Nigeria’s federal system. Without any doubt, the challenges of insecurity in the country are manifesting in new desperate forms beyond problems of kidnappings and Boko Haram, which the APC inherited in 2015 when it assumed power. Unfortunately, instead of political leaders seeking to address these issues using dialogue, negotiations and the progressive reform of the 1999 constitution, reckless and ill-motivated ethnic and regional political organisations and their self-appointed spokespersons kept issuing inflammatory and intemperate statements and counter-statements.

 

Most Nigerians observed the ethno-regional activities of these groups with consternation and grief, the reckless and bellicose utterances of groups, organisations and individuals fanning the ember of ethnic and regional hate and openly seeking the dismemberment of Nigeria. It is even more regrettable that these groups have been issuing provocative statements on behalf of sections of the country. It is, however, important to appreciate that the proliferation of these youth groups, is in the first place, a reflection of the failure of development, and specifically a failure to create a future for the youth population who now devote their energy to unproductive ventures including serving as cannon fodders for divisive politics and the violence associated with it.

 

While the unity of Nigeria should be a priority, it must be underlined by the commitment of political parties in power and their elected representatives at all levels. Political parties and elected representatives must effectively govern and deliver services and promote social justice; formulate policies that take account of Nigeria’s ethnic and cultural diversities; and promote the security and welfare of citizens across the country irrespective of the ethnicity and religion of individuals and groups.

 

Myth of a “Geographical Expression”

 

Nigerian politicians and elites who are determined to work against Nigeria’s unity and corporate existence often misrepresent the observation once made in 1947 by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo to the effect that Nigeria was a “mere geographical expression”. The essence of this remark, which was apt at the time, was that only by addressing the reality of our differences would Nigeria make progress. 

 

Nigeria of today is not a mere geographical expression. The consequence of our liberal Constitution, which have encouraged Nigerians to live in every part of the country to pursue legitimate activities regardless of ethnicity and place of origin is that diverse and multi-cultural communities exist in every part of the country. The free movement of people across the length and breadth of Nigeria, which started even before British colonialism, has resulted in trans-regional ethnic and religious ties and truly diverse communities in all parts of Nigeria. Many Nigerians have their lifetime investments in regions and states other than the ones they call their own in the Nigerian parlance. The reality today is that these cross-cutting ties have created bonds across ethnic, religious and regional divides around livelihood issues which are more enduring than primordial identities of religion and “tribe”.

 

There are many successful nations today in terms of having a common purpose and strong national bond that have been created out of multiple ethnic and religious identities. Visionary and purposeful leadership has created such nations, leveraging on strong national institutions, good governance, equity and justice, which enable each group to fulfill its aspirations. After all, a nation is an imagined community of people who share a common aspiration, which is realisable through the principles of justice and the rule of law as enunciated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The idea of Nigeria being a mere geographical expression is, therefore, a misnormer in the light of the present realities.

 

APC and the Campaign for True Federalism

 

Perhaps unlike the case of lost opportunity under the sixteen-year tenure of PDP in terms initiatives to rebuild Nigeria’s federalism, the Chief John Odigie-Oyegun led APC National Working Committee, in July 2017 set up the APC Committee on True Federalism with Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State and Sen. Olubunmi Adetunmbi, as Chairman and Secretary respectively. The Committee initially had a limited membership of ten (10) but was later expanded to twenty-seven (27), covering all sections of the country, all interest groups and given more time to consult more extensively across the country. Its terms of reference include making recommendations to advance the unity, national integration and collective well-being of the country. 

 

In discharging its mandate, the Committee identified thirteen (13) issues based on the review of reports of National Conferences, including the 2005 National Political Reform Conference and the 2014 National Conference. The 13 issues identified are - Creation of States, Merger of States, Derivation Principle, Devolution of Powers, Federating Units, Fiscal Federalism & Revenue Allocation, Form of Government, Independent Candidacy, Land Tenure System, Local Government Autonomy, Power Sharing & Rotation, Resource Control and Type of Legislature.

 

Having outlined these issues, the Committee invited memoranda from Nigerians and held public hearings in all the six geopolitical zones of the country. The committee broadened its considerations of issues to be recommended to advance the unity, national integration and collective well-being of Nigeria beyond the limited interest of members of the APC. It took memoranda and submissions of Nigerians who are not APC members. Besides, it organised dedicated public hearings for women, youth, civil society and physically challenged groups, which held between September 18 and October 9, 2017. And based on all the submissions from the public hearings, the Committee made the following recommendations:

 

1. Creation of state – creation of state is not expedient given the bureaucracy and attendant cost but recommended the need to attend to the isolated case of South East zone where there is the demand to balance states to be equal to other zones.

 

2. Merger of states – recommended constitutional provision for legal and administrative frameworks for states that may consider merger provided it does not threaten the authority or existence of the federation.

 

3. Derivation principle – recommended amendment to section 162 (2) of the constitution to allow for upward review of the current derivation formula and its adoption in respect of solid minerals and hydro power.

 

4. Fiscal federalism and revenue allocation – recommended amendment of Allocation of revenue Act 2002 to ensure upward review of current revenue sharing formula to states.

 

5. Devolution of powers – recommended the transfer of some items on the exclusive legislative lists to concurrent and residual, which include foods, drugs, poison, narcotics and psychotropic substances, fingerprints and identification of criminal records, registration of business names, labour, mines and minerals including oil field, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas, police, prisons, public holidays, railways and stamp duties be transferred to concurrent list.

 

6. Federating units – recommended retention of current political arrangements with states as federating units. In order to continue to manage constant agitation to make geo-political zones federating units, recommended that group of states can cooperate on regional basis in line with section 5 (3) of the constitution.

 

7. Form of government – recommended continuation of the presidential system but concerns about corruption and high cost of governance should be addressed with all seriousness.

 

8. Independent candidates – recommended that anybody who wishes to contest as independent candidate can do so provided that such a person shall not be a registered member of a political party at least six (6) months before the date set for the elections, his/her nominators must not be members of registered political party, he/she pays a deposit to INEC in the same range as the non-refundable deposit fee payable to candidates sponsored by political parties to their parties, which should be determined by Act of the National Assembly and the candidate must meet other qualification requirements provided by the constitution.

 

9. Land tenure system – recommended that the land use act be retained in the constitution in the greater interest of national security and the protection of Nigeria’s arable land from international land grabbers.

 

10. Local government autonomy – recommended that LGA should be removed from the constitution and states be allowed to develop local administrative system that is relevant and peculiar to respective states.

 

11. Power sharing and rotation – recommended that the complexity of power sharing and rotation be managed at party level rather than in the constitution.

 

12. Resource control – recommended amendment of Petroleum Act, LFN 2004, Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007, Land Use Act, 1978 and Petroleum Profit Tax Act, 2007 so that states can exercise control over natural resources within their respective territories and pay taxes or royalties therefrom to federal government.

 

13. Type of legislature – recommended retention of current system but with downward review of running cost.

 

14. Other issues

 

Beyond the 13 issues, the Committee made additional recommendations on 11 issues, which are considered necessary to strengthen Nigeria’s democracy and make it functionally appealing to wider sections of Nigerians. These 11 additional recommendations, all came from the submissions received from Nigerians from all the public hearings across the six geo-political zones. The 11 additional recommendations are:

 

A.    Demand for affirmation of vulnerable groups – recommended that vulnerable groups (women, youths and physically challenged persons be given adequate attention in terms of appointment in government jobs and political positions, including creating dedicated advisory role at all levels.

 

B.    Citizenship – recommended a comprehensive review of all constitutional provisions on indigeneship and residency status to eliminate all the pervading primordial sentiments on citizenship and indegineship so that ethnic affiliation begin to give way to birth and residency.

 

C.   Ministerial appointment – recommended amendment to section 147 (3) of the constitution to remove requirement on the President to appoint Ministers from every state who must be indigene of the states.

 

D.   State constitution – recommended that state constitution is not a priority.

 

E.    Role of traditional rulers – recommended that each state explore ways of incorporating traditional institutions into their governance models based on which respective House of Assembly enact appropriate laws.

 

F.     Community participation – support all efforts to promote increased community participation in governance within the framework of two-tier federation.

 

G.   Minimum wage legislation – recommended that each state should be free to decide its remuneration based on its resources and productivity

 

H.   Elections – recommended that every tier of government should have autonomy in conducting its own elections

 

I.      Governance – recommended review of scope of immunity granted to Governors and Deputy Governors

 

J.      Judiciary – recommended the creation of State Judicial Council to exercise the function of National Judicial Council in relation to state courts.

 

K.    State alignment and boundary adjustment – recommended that section 8 (2) and (4) of the constitution be amended in order to subject any request for boundary adjustment to a referendum as the case with creation of states and local governments under section 8 (1) and (3) of the constitution.

 

The full report of the Committee was submitted to the APC National Working Committee on January 25, 2018 organised in four volumes are:

 

·         Volume 1: Main Report. - http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-1-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism/

 

·         Volume 2: Legislative, Executive and Other Action Plans - http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-2-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism-action-plan/

 

·         Volume 3: Project Communications Report & Online Survey - http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Volume-3-Project-Communication-and-Online-Survey.pdf

 

·         Volume 4: Summary of Memoranda and Analysis of Data - http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Appendix.pdf

 

Volume 2 contained proposed legislative bills for either constitutional or amendments of all the relevant laws based on the recommendations contained in the report of the APC Committee on True Federalism. 

 

Negotiating True Federalism and Political Parties

 

The report of the APC True Federalism Committee represents a radical departure by a political party in Nigeria in responding to political challenges facing the country. It was the first time since Nigeria’s independence that a political party would undertake such an elaborate exercise and come up with a report that could have appropriately aggregated all the contentious demands and interests of all sections of the country. Besides, the decision of the Committee to invite memorandum and organise public hearings in all the geopolitical zones of the country was also the first time a political party would undertake such an extensive participatory exercise. Perhaps for being able to correctly aggregate all the contentious demands from all parts of the country, even Governors of PDP such as former Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State publicly commended the report.

 

The Report of the Committee is now in the custody of the National Assembly Constitution amendment committee led by the Deputy Senate President, Sen. Ovie Omo-Agege. Like many nations, Nigeria is a nation built on multiple and diverse identities that requires purposeful and visionary leadership. Nigeria can fulfil its manifest destiny as Africa’s regional power with leadership that is a rallying point for good governance, justice, equity and the rule of law. It is doubtful that Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Tiv or any individual ethnic group can attend greatness and satisfactorily fulfil the aspirations of its members. Democratic governance offers Nigeria the rare opportunity to reconfigure the Nigerian federation to become a genuinely federal democracy that meets the aspirations of the citizens in which fiscal and political autonomy at sub-national level co-exists without tension with a stable national government capable of being a mirror for its constituent elements. However, this is only possible if the Nigerian nation is strengthened based on strategic reform of the federal structures such that issues of development and access to opportunities by all citizens irrespective of identities are guaranteed.

 

Although APC was able to debate, negotiate and agree on some baseline proposals as responses to Nigeria’s numerous national challenges during the merger negotiation and during the 2015 and 2019 campaigns, the same could not be said about other parties including the PDP. The other issue is also that even within APC, leaders may not be uniformly committed to implementation of these baseline proposals as agreed by the party including recommendations of the APC Committee on True Federalism. How parties can develop frameworks that compel all leaders especially elected representative to implement agreements is the challenge.

 

The reality is that while as a nation, we have made progress especially with respect to managing elections, the challenge of political party development and how they are able to serve as vehicles for interest negotiations in the country is taken for granted if not neglected. The only interest that dominates our parties is personal ambitions of individuals and how ethnic factors are used to negotiate those interests. Unless a new framework is instituted, which strengthened commitment of political parties and leaders to facilitate interest negotiations in the country and when there are agreements, elected leaders are compelled to implement, narrow issues of leadership selection based on ethnic or religious identities will continue to be exploited by political elites in the country. Even where political parties and leaders are able to initiate policy measure that proportionately responded to citizens demands from all parts of the country, issues of subjective interpretation of priorities of parties and political leaders would be used to undermine the democratic credentials of political parties and leaders.

 

For instance, when the issue of representation in leadership become the main problem of democracy and reduced to ethnic, religious, or other demographic factors, negotiation may only lead to some wild goose chase of endless political problems, which mutates and resurfaces in bigger or worst forms. This is largely because ethnic, religious and all the other democratic factors do not represent any conscious choice made by any candidate for any leadership position and therefore wouldn’t highlight the possible choices of such a political leader. We can as individuals be associated with any of these groups (ethnic, religious or demographic), mobilise and make demands. However, it is important to recognise that compromises based on simplistic representation in leadership on account of ethnic, religious or demographic factors alone will hardly resolve most of Nigeria’s developmental challenges.

 

Problems associated with negotiating only issues of representation in leadership has trapped the Nigeria’s democracy and for over 20 years now, Nigerians have limited political contests to only electoral contests. Whether political leaders are taking any initiative to facilitate interest negotiations based on development priorities is at best assumed. Even when they initiate interest negotiations, so long as such negotiation does not rhyme with the popular narrative of promoting dominant narrow interests, which seeks to produce some expected compromises, unwillingness and disdain sets in and sadly any potential political negotiation risked being blocked.

 

There is no dispute that Nigeria is an emerging democracy. As an emerging democracy, policy initiatives of political leaders should be the driving factors for political negotiation, not just electoral contest. Political development initiatives without corresponding negotiation or engagement involving political leaders and citizens, create problems of ownership. The painful aspect of this is that even when political leaders come up with excellent responses to problems faced by citizens, factors of alienation on account of lack of negotiation can make citizens to oppose such initiatives by political leaders.

 

This is perhaps the case why notwithstanding all the landmark development initiatives of the current APC administration under President Buhari, such as the National Social Investment Programme and the ambitious infrastructural development in every part of the country, the political narrative promoted by opposition parties, especially PDP is that APC and President Buhari have failed. What are the alternatives being offered by the PDP and all those opposed to APC especially in terms managing ethnic tension and promoting national unity and peaceful co-existence can only be assumed. There is nothing either with reference party manifesto or campaign documents that highlight the visions of political parties opposed to the APC.

 

Unfair Politics of Ethnicity

 

Thus, beyond propaganda, how true is it that APC and President Buhari are sectional as is being claimed by opposition PDP and their supporters? Is there any justification to such a claim with reference to the policies being implemented, whether with reference to location of projects or the expected beneficiaries? The best way to check this is to review the policies being implemented by APC controlled Federal Government led by President Buhari.

 

·        For instance, Social Investment Programmes are being implemented in every state of the country without any exception. As part of that all the five States of the South-East produced 68,000 N-Power beneficiaries and 85,000 similar beneficiaries for the six States of the South-South. In all five States of the South East, the APC-led Federal Government is funding school feeding programme, while three States of the South-South are benefiting. In addition, in the case of the South-East, pensions have been paid to Retired War-Affected (Ex-Biafran) Police. In 2017, the Buhari Administration paid 500 million Naira to clear pensions arrears that had not been paid since their presidential pardon in 2000.

 

·        Formal flag-off of the N-Power Build Programme, the Buhari Administration’s Vocational Training and Apprenticeship programme, took place in Enugu State, on the premises of Anambra Motor Manufacturing Company Limited (ANAMMCO Limited), on Friday May 18, 2018. It is also to the credit of President Buhari led APC government that N700 billion for Road Refunds to states was made to all state governments irrespective of which geo-political region they come from. Rivers State government which is a PDP state got over N70 billion. 362.5 billion Naira raised in Sovereign Sukuk Bonds so far, shared EQUALLY across the 6 geopolitical zones. Similarly, there was the case of Paris Club Refunds to all the 36 state governments. Estimated $5 billion was paid by the Federal Government without any state being discriminated.

 

·        There is the case of International Airport Upgrades, which the President Buhari administration included Enugu Airport in the list of International Airports receiving federal attention: Brand new runway was delivered to the airport in 2020; work is ongoing on new International Terminal Building. The new Port Harcourt International Airport Terminal has been completed and commissioned in 2018. New International Airport Terminals have also been completed and commissioned in Abuja, while those in Lagos and Kano are being completed. In addition, brand new Runways have been constructed in Abuja and Enugu, in 2017 and 2020 respectively.

 

·        The Presidential Infrastructure Development Fund (PIDF) that has 3 projects so far, one in the South-West, one in the North, one in the South-East - the 200 billion Naira Second Niger Bridge, which is projected for 2022 completion. The second Niger Bridge, originally conceived decades ago, is now more than 50 percent completed, and scheduled for commissioning in 2022, as is the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, which has defied every administration since 1999. Other landmark projects being completed include the Bodo-Bonny Road in Rivers State, Apapa-Oshodi-Oworonshoki Expressway, Loko-Oweto Bridge connecting Benue and Nasarawa States across the River Benue, Port Harcourt-Enugu Expressway, East-West Road (across Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Cross River States), the new Ikom Bridge in Cross River, Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Expressway, Keffi-Akwanga-Lafia-Makurdi Road, and many more.

 

·        Take the ground-breaking project for reconstruction of Port Harcourt – Maiduguri Rail Line, linking the South-East States to a Sea Port, and to Northern Nigeria. Similarly, there is the Lagos – Kano rail line. A section of it, 156km Lagos – Ibadan Standard Gauge Rail, the first double-track Standard Gauge Rail project in West Africa (and the first Standard Gauge Rail project in Nigeria to be started and completed by the same administration). Financing of the Ibadan – Kano part of the project has already commenced. The Lagos – Ibadan Rail Line was commissioned nine months after the 327km Itakpe – Warri Standard Gauge Rail, was commissioned 33 years after construction began. The 168km Abuja – Kaduna Rail project, and the 42.5km Abuja Light Rail project, both inherited from previous administrations, were completed in 2016 and 2018 respectively. A brand new Deep Sea Port is being constructed, in Lagos, the first new Deep Sea Port in the country in more than four decades; while ground-breaking for a second private-sector-funded Deep Sea Port (in Bonny) took place in March 2021.

 

·        There is also the flagship agriculture initiative, the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI) of the Buhari Administration. The PFI was launched in December 2016 as a government-to-government partnership between the Governments of Nigeria and Morocco. Since inception it has produced and delivered to the Nigerian market, over 30 million 50kg bags equivalent of fertilizer, at reduced prices; and resulted in the revival or construction of no fewer than 40 moribund fertilizer blending plants across the country. That Nigeria today has 44 functioning blending plants, with more on the way, is solely due to the success of the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI). The following are some of the specific achievements of the PFI:

 

o   In 2017, the multinational group Olam invested $150 million in an integrated animal feed mill, poultry breeding farms and hatchery in Kaduna State, as well as an integrated poultry and fish feed mill in Kwara State.

 

o   In Anambra State, the Coscharis Group began the cultivation of rice in 2016, on a 2,500 hectare farm, and soon after expanded into Milling, with the commissioning of a 40,000 MT modular Rice Mill in 2019,

 

o   In Niger State, the BUA Group is currently completing a $300million Integrated Facility comprising a Sugar Mill, Ethanol Plant, Sugar Refinery and Power Plant, and a 20,000-Hectare Farm.

 

o   In Kebbi State, GB Foods has invested 20 billion Naira in a Tomato Processing Factory supplied by what is said to be the single largest tomato farm in the country. Future phases of the investment will make it the largest processing facility for fresh tomatoes in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

o   The same GB Foods in July 2020 opened its N5.5 billion Mayonnaise production facility in Ogun State, which will be supplied with input from the company’s new farms in Kebbi State.

 

o   In Lagos, Ariel Foods FZE has recently constructed and completed the biggest Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) production facility in Africa.

 

o   In Nasarawa State, the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA) has recently completed work on the first phase of a multi-million-dollar animal feed processing facility and a backward-integrated 3000-hectare Maize and Soyabeans Farm, in a co-investment partnership with a South African Investment Group.

 

o   In 2021, the Dangote Group commissioned its $2 billion Fertilizer Plant, with an annual capacity of 3 million Metric Tonnes, the largest fertilizer plant in West Africa. In June 2021, the plant began delivering an average of 120 trucks of Urea per week to the Nigerian market, and is also set to target the export market across West Africa and beyond.

 

o   State Governments are also actively keying into the President’s Agriculture vision. In 2018, Cross River commissioned a  3 billion Naira Hybrid Rice Seedlings Factory, to supply rice seedlings to farmers and governments across the country.

 

o   Lagos State is completing the 32 Metric Tonne per hour Imota Rice Mill, which, when functional, will be one of the largest rice processing facilities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Imota Rice Mill will produce 2.4 million bags of 50kg per annum, and create an estimated 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, and will plug Lagos State firmly into the national rice value chain.

 

o   Ekiti State is reviving its Ikun Dairy Farm, in a successful partnership with Promasidor, with a production target of 10,000 Liters of milk daily.

 

o   In Ondo State, the 9 billion Naira Sunshine Chocolate Factory - a Public Private Partnership involving the State Government - was completed and commissioned in 2020, to take advantage of the State’s leading position in the cultivation of cocoa.

 

·        There is also the Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP), which is being implemented by the Central Bank of Nigeria, launched by President Buhari on November 17, 2015, in Kebbi State. Since then, it has provided more than 300 billion Naira to more than 3.1 million smallholder farmers of 21 different commodities (including Rice, Wheat, Maize, Cotton, Cassava, Poultry, Soy Beans, Groundnut, Fish), across all the 36 states of Nigeria, successfully cultivating over 3.8 million hectares of farmland, and helping agriculture enjoy the enviable feat of being the only sector of the Nigerian economy that has consistently posted positive growth rates since 2015.

 

·        There is also the Energizing Education Programme (taking clean and reliable energy to Federal Universities across the country): One of the first EEP projects to be completed and launched was the 2.8MW Solar Power Plant at Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike Ikwo, Ebonyi State. Similar to the EEP is the Energizing Economies Initiative: (taking clean and reliable energy to economic clusters i.e. markets, shopping complexes etc, across the country). One of the first to be completed and launched was the first phase of the Ariaria Market (Aba) IPP, supplying electricity to 4,000 shops in the Market. 

 

·        Another initiative of the President Buhari APC led Federal Government is NSIA Healthcare Investments under which Brand new $5.5m Medical Diagnostics Center has been completed in Umuahia and operational. The other NSIA Healthcare investments are in Lagos and Kano. There is the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative and Ebonyi State was among the first set of State Governments to sign up, which resulted in the revitalisation of a moribund Fertilizer Blending Plant in Abakaliki, which now supplies NPK Fertilizer to farmers in the State and beyond. It was also to the credit of the administration that in 2018 Zik Mausoleum in Awka, Anambra State was completed and commissioned, 22 years after construction started. 

 

There are many more other initiatives of the APC led Federal Government of President Muhammadu Buhari spread across all sections of the country. Compared to all other administrations, especially PDP led Federal Government between 1999 and today, a fair assessment will indicate the reality that President Buhari has achieved much more within six years covering all the six geo-political zones of the country. President Buhari led APC Federal Government has done more for the South-West and South-East in six years than all the PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015 combined. Largely because politics is reduced to electoral contests of personalities, dishonest campaigns led by PDP have dominated public conversations in the country.

 

Challenges of Insecurity – The Big Elephant in the Room

 

Recognising that issues of insecurity inherited by the APC led government of President Buhari remained a major challenge, this not a matter that should be politicised. Some PDP leaders and their supporters have accused APC of using insecurity to defeat PDP. This is false. The reality was that PDP under former President Jonathan argued that Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East was sponsored by opposition to PDP. And when the Chibok abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls happened in 2014, the position of former President Jonathan led Federal Government was that it was a setup. For quite some time, former President Jonathan administration did not mobilise any response to the Chibok abduction.

 

There was also the challenge of corruption, which embroiled the management of huge amount of money (billions) meant for the procurement of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgents. Till today those issues are being investigated. Former National Security Adviser under the former President Jonathan, Col. (Rtd) Sambo Dasuki, former PDP National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Olisa Metu and many PDP leaders are facing trial.

 

The point is, up to May 2015 when APC government was inaugurated, PDP led Federal Government was in denial of especially the problem of Boko Haram insurgency. This is not the case with APC under President Buhari. No doubt, insecurity has assumed new forms, activities of bandits, resulting in kidnappings and abductions of innocent Nigerians, including school children. Related to this is the recurrence of ethnic conflicts because of criminal activities of some Fulani herdsmen. Issues of open grazing and the need to regulate the movement of Fulani herdsmen have generated so much controversies in the country.

 

Beyond politics however, it must be recognised that problems of insecurity are issues, which require that Nigerians, especially our leaders should unite. A situation where political leaders use the problem of insecurity to promote divisive campaigns in the country, is most unfortunate. It was the American political scientist, John Mearsheimer, in the book, The Great Delusion – Liberal Dreams and International Realities, who draw attention to how our capability for critical thinking and reasoning as humans distinguishes us with all other creatures and makes it possible to dominate our planet earth. It is also the same capacity for critical thinking and reasoning that enables us to create body of ideas ‘about how the world works. Yet there are significant limits on our ability to reason, which have important consequences for social and political life. One such limitation, our inability to agree about what constitutes the good life, sometimes leads individually as well as social groups to hate and try to hurt others, which in turn causes the others to worry about their survival.’

 

As Nigerians, the problem of hate is making us lose our humanity so much that notion of survival both for individuals and groups is more about our ability to defend and rationalise our inclinations even when lives of other citizens are in danger. Our instinct to rationalise unacceptable realities has worsened and is certainly extinguishing our humanity to the extent that there is hardly any difference between leaders and followers as well as educated and illiterate citizens. If anything, our education is making most of us to become leading campaigners and promoters of our disagreements and why we should hate each other on accounts of our ethnic and religious differences. But as Mearsheimer asked, ‘First, are our preferences rational, and do those goals promote our survival or make some other kind of sense? Second, are we acting strategically to achieve our goal?

 

Do we even have any goal and if we do, what is our goal? Is it possible in any way that our goal includes promoting crimes or rationalising misconducts of Nigerians on account of ethnicity? It is very worrisome that as supporters of ethnic agitations, in one way or the other, political campaigns in the country is promoting ethnic and religious hatreds. Consequently, we are unable to see anything good associated with our so-called competing ethnic and religious groups. Everything is about casting aspersion on religious and ethnic groups outside the ones we belong. We profile each other in ways that suggest there is scarcely anything good about citizens belonging to other religious and ethnic groups. Everything that anyone coming from other ethnic and religious groups other than the ones we belong pronounces or articulates must be interpreted to confirm our beliefs in how bad other ethnic and religious groups are.

 

The reality is that none of Nigeria’s security challenges is new. Many would ask, if they are not new, why is the President Buhari led APC government unable to resolve the nation’s security challenges? The good thing is that unlike the former PDP led Federal Government, APC led Federal Government is not denying that the country is faced with security challenges. As a result, there are initiatives being implemented to respond to the challenges. These include Equipping the Security Agencies and Building Morale, under which hundreds of new platforms are being acquired for the Army, Air Force and Navy. The Nigeria Air Force has received 23 new aircraft since 2015, with at least a dozen more being expected, and the Navy has most recently acquired its first new Landing Ship Tank (LST) since 1979.

 

The administration is promoting Community-led Solutions to Insecurity, New Security Infrastructure and Operations across Land and Maritime Environments, under which the Integrated National Security and Waterways Protection Infrastructure project was flagged-off and in the last five years, a number of technology solutions are being deployed and implemented to support the Police, Immigration and other security agencies.

 

The APC led administration is also addressing the underlying drivers of insecurity (poverty and youth unemployment), which include the new plan to lifted 10.5 million Nigerians out of poverty. The Federal Government has recently approved a National Poverty Reduction with Growth Strategy Plan, to consolidate on the successes so far, and to achieve the President’s vision of lifting a 100 million Nigerians out of poverty within a decade. 

 

Certainly, all these measures can be strengthened, and the government can do more especially in relation to getting our security agencies to be accountable. Irrespective of ethnicity or religion, every Nigerian is at risk. The hard truth is that the nation’s security challenge requires thorough introspection by not just our security agencies but also imposition of severe sanction against security personnel, traditional and community leaders where kidnappings, banditry and all the crimes consuming the lives of innocent Nigerians are taking place. Most of the crimes being committed across the country are products of collaborations by some security personnel, traditional and community leaders.

 

Every police, security personnel, traditional and community leader, located within areas where activities of bandits such as kidnappings and abductions are taking place should be arrested and tried. Similarly, everywhere such incidences take place, police, security, traditional and community leaders should be the first line suspect. They should be made to prove their innocence by producing the culprits, failing which, they should be convicted. Depending on the extent of the problem, there is no reason why corporal punishment covering life and death sentences should not be given.

 

Everything considered, it will appear that number of police personnel in Nigeria may not necessarily be the problem, although many security experts believe strongly that it is indeed an issue. Issues of capacity with reference to equipment, training, intelligence gathering, moral, etc. are also strong factors, which need to be immediately addressed. Outside the police, other arms of the security agencies are faced with similar challenges.

 

The current security structure in the country needs to radically be reformed. Issues of amending the laws to enable state governments to establish state police

are clearly unavoidable. However, there are conditions that must be considered before any decision to establish state police can serve as a good response to Nigeria’s security challenges. This include the requirement that processes of regulating the operations of the state police should be centralised as part of the functions of the Federal Police. Under that, for instance, issues of recruitment, qualification, background checks for those to be recruited, enforcement of disciplinary requirement, arms procurement and training for weapon handling, etc. should be handled at Federal level so that there are uniform standards across the country. It should be like the case of universities with National University Commission (NUC) serving as the regulatory body enforcing standards across all Nigerian universities.

 

Outside regulations, there are issues of funding. Most time, Nigerians make proposals in terms of how government should address challenges with the assumption that funding is given, which means that government can always mobilise the resources. This is mostly exaggerated. To address Nigerian security challenges, especially if the establishment of state police is to be considered, there must be a new funding arrangement, which should insulate the operations of Nigeria Police including the new state police to be established from all the uncertainties surrounding public financial management.

 

Conclusion – Developing Political Parties

All things considered; Nigerian politics must be developed such that political parties prioritise interest negotiations beyond the narrow electoral contest focusing on regional and ethnic representations. Specific regional demands for developments should be integral parts of any demand for regional or ethnic representation in the leadership of the country. Clear policy choices reflected in commitments of political parties based on provisions in their manifestos should be the driving factors of leadership negotiations. Opposition to leadership should not be about promoting ethnic and religious hatred in the country. Once politics is oriented around promotion of ethnic and religious hatred, it will undermine capacity of leaders to mobilise Nigerians. It will also weaken the capacity of citizens to engage leaders and influence policy decisions. Consequently, this will undermine democratic development of Nigeria.

 

It is necessary that Nigerians recognise that political parties should be the most important democratic bodies to facilitate the process of negotiations in terms of how Nigerian federalism should be reformed. All political parties should be able to have clear positions in terms of how they intend to reform Nigerian federalism. Specific details of negotiable items should be outlined, and frameworks should be developed within political parties to ensure that elected representatives are committed to implement positions adopted by political parties. Eventually, Nigerian democracy should graduate from situation whereby electoral contests is all about personality contests, to the level that policy choices are integral parts of electoral contest.

 

If the narrative is that APC has failed, what is the alternative being offered by the opposition, including PDP? As part of the introspection required to strengthen the capacity of our party, our leaders and governments, we need to engage the debate based on assessment of what we must do to rebuild the confidence of Nigerians and regained their trust. In doing that, we need to restrategise and more effectively present the objective scorecards of governments at all levels since 2015 in ways that can truly demonstrate to Nigerians what has been achieved, and why in spite of what has been achieved we are having the challenges facing us as a nation. Nigerians need to rise above cheap campaigns of ethnic politics, which is now being used to promote hatred in the country. Anybody playing up the politics of ethnic hatred is big risk to even his/her ethnic group and is only opportunistically doing so in order to access leadership positions.

 

The debate continues, Nigerian democracy shall overcome its challenges such that Nigerian political parties can develop to facilitate interest negotiations effectively and efficiently as a major attribute of politics. Ultimately, Nigerians will be able to respect our differences and be able to access and harness the vast resource potentials of Nigeria at any point, anytime, anywhere and by everyone!

 

Thank you!

 

 

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigerian Politics and Question of National Unity

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

President Muhammadu Buhari, on Wednesday, July 14, 2021, while receiving the report of the National Security Summit of May 26, 2021, organised by the House of Representatives, remarked that ‘we are a lucky country and should congratulate ourselves, despite challenges that could have torn us apart.’ More than any time, since the end of the Nigerian civil war in 1970, the survival of the country as a united nation is being threatened. Although, at all times, there were issues that reminded us of our divisive backgrounds, often manifesting in terms of political demands by sections of the country, this is the first time Nigeria is experiencing secessionist agitations from two groups from two sections of the country – Nnamdi Kanu’s group in the South-East and Sunday Igboho’s in the South-West. These are agitations, which have assumed the forms of civil disobedience and in the case of Nnamdi Kanu’s group in South-East, it has graduated to rebellion against the Nigerian state, resulting in attacks on police stations, kidnappings and killings of security personnel and other functionaries of government as well as destructions of government structures.

 

With the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, which has dragged for over ten years now and the unfortunate loss of thousands of lives, destructions of both public and private properties, the recent secessionist agitations of Nnamdi Kano and Sunday Igboho require effective and efficient responses to maintain Nigeria as a united country. Noting also the rising incidences of banditry in the North-West and North-Central, producing more cases of kidnappings and abductions of law-abiding citizens, including schoolchildren, challenges of national survival is basically about strengthening the capacity of Nigerian security agencies to prevent and arrest criminal activities of rebellious groups in all parts of the country. In the midst of all these is the task of preventing or managing conflicts arising from activities of herdsmen, which is engendering all manner of clashes between Fulani herdsmen and other citizens, especially farmers, across all parts of Nigeria. Criminal activities associated with herdsmen have increased incidences of banditry, kidnappings and abductions of citizens.

 

Although challenges of insecurity in the North-West and North-Central have not taken the form of organised civil disobedience or insurgency against the Nigerian state, it has certainly reached the level of war against innocent citizens. Remarkably, the South-South region of the country, which used to have higher incidences of kidnappings and attacks on oil installations, at least up to around 2007, is now, relative to the other regions, with the least of incidences of disruptive activities. Whether low incidences of disruptive activities mean it is the safest section of the country, is entirely a different matter. Somehow, the Niger Delta Avengers, who were responsible for attacks on oil installations across the South-South region in the past, are now threatening to resume their old disruptive activities against the Nigerian state, according to them to protest government’s neglect of the region.

 

All these contribute significantly to the tense inter-ethnic relations between and within all the six geo-political regions of Nigeria, thereby responsible for rising cases of ethnic and communal conflicts and violence. Issues of equity, justice and fairness, both with respect to distribution of resources and representation in government are the main political demands requiring responses to meet the expectations of Nigerians from all the six geo-political regions. Cries of marginalisation and neglect with contestable justifications are very loud across all parts of the country. It is simply either demand for restructuring/true federalism or power shift/rotation of Presidency between the Northern and Southern parts Nigeria.

 

These demands mean different things to the different regions. Consequently, perceptions of contemporary challenges of Nigeria are different across all the six geo-political regions and from the different ethnic groups. Therefore, expectations are also different even when the demands are made in the same vocabulary. To a large extent, the distinctive attributes of the different geo-political regions that constitute Nigeria and the ethnic groups from the respective regions is responsible for why the same demand is interpreted differently. The overarching challenge basically is how, as a democratic nation, political structures can facilitate the process of consensus building and agreement among the constituent parts of the country – the six geo-political regions and all the different ethnic groups.

 

The extent to which therefore the details of the demands from the six geo-political regions are clarified by political leaders based on which they are able to commit themselves to agreements that translate to initiatives that unite citizens is the critical challenge of Nigeria’s contemporary political development. How are political leaders handling this critical challenge? Are there initiatives being taken to facilitate consensus building and agreements by political leaders from the six geo-political regions of the country? To what extent are processes of consensus building being driven by lawful institutions in the country? How representative are the different sections of the country’s political leadership in the processes of consensus building? To what extent are political leaders committed to agreements reached?

 

No doubt, there are efforts by successive political leaders, especially since the end the civil war to facilitate institutionalised processes of consensus building in the country. Whether those processes have produced agreements among the constituents’ parts of the country is also a challenge. However, the fact that national unity remained under threat, even on a bigger scale, is indicative of either the absence of agreement or lack of commitments by political leaders to implement agreements. Part of the growing challenge is that commitment of political leaders from all parts of the country to facilitate processes of consensus building is more and more diminishing. How can we, as a nation, push our political leaders to be more dedicated to facilitating processes of consensus building and at the same time become more committed to implementing agreements therefrom?

 

Difficulties in developing or strengthening initiatives to facilitate national unity in the country has engendered situations whereby all sections of the country are contemptuous of one another. High contempt for one another has also created unhealthy dynamic such that when initiatives for national unity are introduced, they become additional incentives for sharper divisions in the country. Rather than political leaders from the respective regions engaging initiatives to facilitate consensus building in the country, the initiatives escalate the problems of national unity. Every initiative then widens the problem of national unity. It is more of a vicious circle of endless agitations to resolve problems of maginalisation, injustice, unfairness and so on and so forth. Almost every Nigerian and every section of the country is complaining of almost the same problem.

 

Endless vicious circle of agitations to resolve problems of marginalisation, injustice and unfairness has created atmosphere of deep-seated frustrations by most Nigerians from all sections. It is also responsible for the anger against political leaders and political establishments. Consequently, public commentaries are antagonistic against elected leaders and the ruling party – President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC). Arguably, the belief is that President Buhari and the APC are the problem. Anybody who is associated with them is condemned and projected to be part of the problem. In the same way, every analysis of challenges facing the country, which attempt to highlight any progress being made on account of initiatives by the APC administration led by President Buhari is dismissed and condemned. Some critiques have argued that the APC and President Buhari also used the same approach to defeat the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, which is debatable.

 

It is important that the point is stressed that politics is about choices and every citizen should have the inalienable right to make his/her political decisions. Part of what civilisation require is to respect the choices made by every Nigerian even if we disagree. Inability to respect one another and the choices we all make only stabilise the nation in this season of ethnic contempt, tension and endless conflicts. In all the public outcry against the APC and President Buhari, for instance, even when opposition make valid recommendations to resolve the challenges of national unity, they are not presented with the aim of winning the minds of elected leaders, and to that extent therefore get them to consider adopting and implementing the recommendations. In the same way, when elected representatives initiate actions to resolve challenges facing the country, there is hardly efforts to win the support of citizens.

 

This reality has stagnated Nigerian politics such that almost everything is about election and everyday become election day. All discussions of resolving Nigeria’s challenges then become about voting out the President and his party right from the day he is inaugurated. Unless and until, Nigerian politics is developed in such a way that elections go beyond who emerges as a leader, which happens only every four years, to the point when it is expanded to include engagements between leaders and citizens to contract support for initiatives being taken or to be taken in order to address challenges, national unity may continue to elude us as a nation and problems of avoidable conflicts leading to loss of lives and property will continue to confront the country.

 

Issues of equitable representation in the country’s leadership by the six geo-political regions and their constituent ethnic groups will remain permanent political demand. Regions may continue to produce Nigeria’s leaders with hardly any justification in terms of governments being able to respond to specific challenges facing the particular regions where leaders emerge. For instance, what was the benefit to the South-West throughout the eight-year tenure of former President Obasanjo? Or what was the benefit to the South-South to justify the six-year tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan?

 

While it is true that ethnic politics based on regional contests for the leadership of Nigeria will continue, Nigerians should elevate politics to the level of active engagements to influence choices leaders make, on the one hand, and contract support of citizens for initiatives being taken by leaders, on the other. As important as the question of ensuring that there is equitable opportunity by all the six geo-political regions in terms of who emerges as Nigeria’s leader, specific governance reform agreement to be implement in all the six geo-political regions are required. Why should any region or ethnic group produce a President and at the end of the tenure of such a President, there is nothing in terms of physical development of the region to justify that such a region has produced the President of Nigeria? In the same way, why should the other five regions of the country support the emergence of a President from any one region without agreement that translate to regional developments, covering all the six geo-political zones?

 

As a nation, both citizens and political leaders need to come to terms with the reality that we all need each other to be able to build a nation that guarantee good livelihood for citizens from all sections of the country. Nigeria can fulfil its destiny as Africa and world power with leadership that is a rallying point for good governance based on fair representation, justice and equity. It is debatable if any of the constituent parts and the respective ethnic groups – Igbos, Yorubas, Hausa-Fulanis, Tivs, Efik, Igbibios, Urogbos, or any other individual ethnic group can attend greatness and satisfactorily fulfil the aspirations of its members. Democratic governance offers Nigeria the rare opportunity to reorient the politics of the country to develop the framework for continuous engagements, negotiations and agreements. For this to happen, Nigerian politics must produce political leaders who are able to embrace all parts of the country as their constituency and engage political leaders from the regions based on capacity to support them to provide new leadership to their people that is able to win support for political agreements, which may not be simply about cheap access to elective and appointive positions by the regions.

 

With such political leadership, the blind and dumb perception, which prevent people on both sides of the ethnic divide from recognising the real challenge of national unity can be purged from Nigerian politics. What is the real challenge of national unity? The real challenge would appear to be largely driven by what the political economists, David P. Levine, in the book, Politics Without Reason: The Perfect World and the Liberal Ideal, described as desire that leads to destruction. According to him, it means ‘the construction of desire as a force that demands exclusive possession. This exclusivity suggests a connection to two emotions: greed and envy. Desire is greedy in the sense that it is to have and hold all that is of value: the true or worthy self of which, in the end, there can be only one. It involves envy because this desire to have the one true self must exclude others who in failing to gain honour experience envy in its place. The problem is that desire is inextricably bound up with greed and envy so that the pursuit of desire’s object must bring with it conflict and destruction.

 

This is one of the best explanations of the challenge of national unity facing Nigeria. Every region wants to have exclusive possession of whatever is of value in Nigeria. Inextricably, it produces greed and envy. Political leaders from all sections want to ‘exclusively possess Nigeria’ – the assets and the power to control the territorial boundary to the exclusion of other parts. Regions that are not in control or being controlled become resentful. Today’s conflictual and destructive reality of what we have as Nigeria is a direct consequence of the inability of the nation’s political leadership from all the regions to commit themselves to processes of consensus building so that greed and envy arising from desire by all the regions’ political leaders for exclusive possession can be stopped or at least reduced to the barest minimum.

 

Sadly, almost all Nigerians are now active participants in all the conflict and destructions that is consuming the country produced by the raging desire for exclusive possession of everything of value. Political leaders and ordinary citizens of all the regions are hardly interested in initiatives that can facilitate consensus building, which is required to end current conflicts and destructions as well as prevent future occurrences. All the demands coming from all the regions of the country are more about increased possession, if not exclusive possession. Choices in terms of equitable and fair access to Nigeria’s resources, is at best a derived demand. Tragically, everybody, not just partisan politicians, engages this issue very defensively, mainly to protect current hold and win more possession. Private business people, professionals, academics, diaspora citizens, traditional, religious, community leaders, women, youth, civil society, labour activists are all active campaigners to protect current hold and win more possession for our respective geo-political regions.

 

Campaign for equity, justice and fairness, which should be about finding the right balance for the country become limited to self-protective scheming, often directed to defend the repressive framework, which undermined capacity of political institutions to serve as vehicles for consensus building in the country. Part of the problem, which is resulting in further compounding the challenge of national unity is that Nigerian politics has succeeded in transforming almost every political leader into a regional leader. Instead of nationalist leaders who prioritise initiatives that can unite Nigerians, many political leaders are simply regional leaders who only engages politics with the objective of ensuring that they protect what they imagined their respective regions control, and where possible seek to increase the scope of resources being controlled.

 

When the campaign is about restructuring or true federalism, it is hardly about raising the productive capacities of citizens or governments at all levels across all sections of the country. It is also hardly about expanding the scope of productive activities so that more processing capacity can be developed resulting in industrial growth of all parts the country. When the campaign is about power shift or rotation of presidency between the Northern and Southern parts of the country, it may not necessarily include specific initiatives to resolve regional challenges, which could then facilitate resolution of critical problems faced by citizens in those regions where the President come from such as insurgency, banditry, kidnappings, abductions, etc.

 

Now that 2023 politics is heating up, what is it that can be done specifically to ensure that Nigerian politics begin to focus on mobilising political leaders and establishments to facilitate national unity? First things first; Political leaders from all the six geo-political regions must recognise that they can’t have everything. Therefore, the notion of exclusive possession of everything of value in Nigeria is impossible. Ab initio, political leaders and citizens must recognise that something just has to give for regions to maximise what they can have. The spirit of sacrifice by all will be required in order to guarantee any prospect for regional development under a united Nigeria. It however needs to be stressed that any choice made by political leaders, should not be expected to be perfect or unassailable. If choices made by leaders are to achieve the desired objectives of meeting the expectations of Nigerians, they must be engaged by both citizens and leaders must also recognise that they need to engage citizens to be able to win their support.

 

How Nigerian political parties are able to transform themselves into active platforms for political negotiations to strengthen the unity of Nigeria is the major problem confronting the politics of the country now. The more this task is reduced to expression of regional agitations for demands for restructuring/true federalism or power shift/rotation of presidency between the Northern and Southern parts of the country without addressing the substantive issue of negotiating the details of what all these should mean for all the six geo-political regions, the more national unity will continue to evade our politics. In fact, the more our respective regions will continue to be shortchanged by self-appointed leaders who are least qualified in every respect to speak on behalf of our regions. Otherwise, how could someone like Nnamdi Kanu emerge as the representative of Igbo people from the South-East. These are people who in every field of life have produced very well accomplished, knowledgeable, inspiring and charismatic leaders such as the great Zik of Africa, Dim Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, Alex Ekwueme, Chinua Achebe and in contemporary times Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu, Ken Nnamani, Enyinnaya Abaribe, the two Innocent Chukwumas – the industrialist and the late human rights activist, Allen Onyema, Ngozie Okonjo Eweala, Olisa Agbakoba, Chima Ubani, Emma Ezeazu, etc.

 

Similarly, how can a lackluster looking character like Sunday Igboho be the spokesperson of the knowledgeable Yoruba people of the South-West, the home of the great Awolowo, Chief M. K. O. Abiola, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Chief Alao Aka-Boshorun, Prof. Wole Soyinka, the noble Ransome-Kuti family, Chief Bisi Akande, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and many leaders of human rights and pro-democracy struggles who have given all their lives to the struggle for Nigeria’s development as a united nation such as Mrs. Ayo Ogbe, Mr. Femi Falana, Bamidele Aturu, etc. The same is also the case for all the other regions. Take the case of Boko Haram in the North-East and compare the quality of political leaders the region has provided the nation. It is quite pathetic that a rag tag leader like Shekau could emerge to hold the region captive with a richly endowed and some of the best leaders the country and the world can celebrate.

 

Inability of Nigerian politics to facilitate political negotiations and consensus building is responsible for the current difficulties facing all the geo-political zones of the country. The big question is whether the contest for leadership of the country in 2023 will prioritise processes of national consensus building through negotiations and agreement. Will political leaders from all the six geo-political regions commit themselves to implementing agreements that can strengthen the bonds of unity among citizens from the six geo-political regions? What could be the details of such agreements? And to what extent could the agreements meet the expectations of citizens from all the six geo-political regions? Beyond which region produces the successor to President Buhari, what will be the commitment of the post-2023 Nigerian President to specific agenda of regional developments of both the region he/she come from and the other five regions?

 

Invariably, how will our political parties respond to the challenge of mainstreaming initiatives to facilitate consensus building activities, involving negotiations and agreements to produce the right balance for equitable, just and fair access to Nigeria’s resources by all sections of the country and all citizens. Will parties and their leaders take steps to produce leaders from the regions who can facilitate the unity of the country? Or will parties continue to prioritise issues of regional/ethnic politics at the expense of national unity? At the same time, will parties be able to ensure that once there are agreements on issues that have implications for national unity, leaders are committed to their implementation unassailably? Is there even any prospect that the question of national unity will be a major political agenda of any of our parties?

 

All these would require specific agenda setting initiatives within our respective parties. It is never given. Party leaders and members must work hard to initiate actions within parties. For those of us in APC, the process of re-organisation going on in the party present an advantage. For instance, it should be possible to commence a campaign to review provisions of the APC manifesto to strengthen political initiatives for national unity. Part of the projection should be to get the next National Convention of the party adopt a new manifesto, which would highlight major commitments of the party for national unity to be use during the 2023 campaigns. Integral to the campaign for national unity is the issue of how the party intend to handle negotiation for the emergence of the standard bearer for 2023 elections. In many respects, these are issues that should be handled internally within the structures of the party with all the confidence that principles of justice, equity and fairness can be achieved.

 

Perhaps, it is important to remind our leaders about the point made by the American Political Scientist, John J. Measheimer, in the book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, to the effect that ‘Politics is essentially about who gets to write the rules that govern the group’. According to him, the responsibility of who writes the rule ‘matters greatly because the members of any society are certain to have some conflicting interests, as they will never completely agree about first principles. Given that basic fact of life, whichever faction writes and interprets the rules can do so in ways that serve its interests rather than its rivals’, or reflect its vision of society rather than its rivals’. Of course, power matters greatly in determining which faction wins this competition. The more resources an individual or faction possesses, the more likely it is to control the governing institutions. In short, in a world where reason takes you only so far, the balance of power usually decides who gets to write and enforce the rules.’

 

This means that the campaign for power shift, which is about writing or respecting the rules of our parties, should be handled within the structures of the APC. There will always be conflicting interests in terms of who determine how agreements are reached internally within parties. The reality of our contemporary development as a nation in this Fourth Republic, since 1999, is that during the sixteen years of PDP tenure, processes of respecting political agreements within the PDP have been mismanaged and undermined. With the emergence of our party, APC, in 2013, our leaders were able to skillfully handle negotiations for leadership based on strategic consideration of winning the votes of Nigerians. APC leaders must return to that 2013 mode and handle leadership negotiations for 2023 very carefully and skillfully. APC should continue to work towards setting the right standards for Nigerian politics, which should prioritise national unity!

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigeria’s Challenge and need for Reorientation 

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

As far back as 1918, the German Sociologist, Max Weber, while delivering the speech, ‘Science as a Vocation’ at Munich University, observed that the “fate of our times is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation and, above all, by the ‘disenchantment of the world’. Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life …nor is it accidental that today only within the smallest and intimate circles, in personal human situations, in pianissmo, that something is pulsating that corresponds to the prophetic pneuma, which in former times swept through the great communities like a firebrand, welding them together.” More than hundred years after, logical (rational) and knowledgeable (scholarly) assessments of situations have receded. Disappointment (disenchantment) taken over almost everybody, such that the direction societies are following deviate from known or predictable experiences. Inspirational (sublime) values have disappeared or are fast disappearing, and as a result, conditions that expedite processes of development and human progress are being eroded.

 

Instead of nations becoming stronger and people united, citizens are more and more divided, experiencing so much conflicts, violence and wars, consuming human lives and properties in a scale that is very alarming. In the midst of all these, everyone, or most people, both leaders and the led, as argued in the book edited by the American Psychologist, Robert J. Sternberg, Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, become ‘trapped in rigid mindsets, …actively drawing novel distinctions rather than relying on distinctions drawn in the past. This makes us sensitive to context and perspective. When we are mindless, our behavior is rule- and routine-governed. In contrast, when mindful, our behavior may be guided rather than governed by rules and routines.’

This is no doubt the Nigerian reality of today – ‘rigid mindsets’ with ‘novel distinctions’ of our diverse sensitive ‘context and perspective’. Behaviour, rather than being ‘guided by rules and routines’ (mindful), is instead directed almost mindlessly. So-called smart people are behaving more stupidly. Therefore, more problems are being created than solutions found. How do we get out of this mess? With all the intractable problems of insecurity – insurgency, banditry, kidnappings, abductions, etc., what will be required to get citizens (leaders and the led) to become mindful and guided and not governed by rules and routines?

 

Given the excessive politicisation in the country, especially as 2023 come closer, the temptation to reduce answers to partisan choices are quite high. Valid as partisan choices could be, it is important to recognise that even within partisan choices, citizens will require strong engagements with leaders at all levels and the courage to articulate recommendations as well as win the buy-in of leaders to consider implementation. Part of what must be also recognised is that, important as partisan choices are, beyond the personalities of leaders, the substantive details of initiatives, in terms of strategic plans and the programmes required to recover Nigeria and put the country on the path to resolve all its intractable challenges and accelerate processes of nation building can at best be work in progress.

 

Perhaps, it is necessary to make important clarification from the beginning. No choice is perfect or absolute, partisan choices inclusive. Citizens’ commitments to develop partisan platforms is a determining factor to ensure that choices produce desired outcomes. When choices of partisan platforms are therefore limited to celebration of ‘rigid mindsets’, it may only be active in ‘drawing novel distinctions’ and not capable of ‘relying on distinctions drawn in the past.’ The difference is that ‘drawing novel distinctions’ will be largely about rationalising choices. While ‘relying on distinctions drawn in the past’ is about being able to recognise and acknowledge reality and accordingly envisioned new realities or at least give new insights to old realities.

 

Therefore, in terms of political choices and their applications to contemporary Nigerian reality, the challenge is whether the choices Nigerians make are creating new realities or at least giving new insights to old realities. If political choices are expressed in terms of, for instance, expression of support or resentment to All Progressives Congress (APC) or any party for that matter, including the PDP, to what extent does that produce new realities that can respond to our numerous challenges as a nation? Or in what way is the choice at least giving new insights in terms of how problems can be solved?

 

There can hardly be agreement in terms of how to produce new realities and it will be fruitless to try to establish any agreement as it will be almost impossible. The important issue is about getting Nigerians to take reasonability and initiate actions to produce the envisioned new reality. This was the point very well-articulated by one of the leading ideologues of the PDP, my good friend and longtime associate, Dr. Sam Amadi, when he reported some reflections, he recently had, on his Facebook timeline, about a ‘friend from Rwanda who’ argued that ‘in Rwanda culture, leaders don’t complain or wail about problems. Leaders proffer solutions.’ This was explained to be because the Rwanda culture ‘was a result of the experience of genocide, when the youths of Rwanda discovered that the world did not offer them support. They took it to mean they alone should solve their problems. So, if you are a leader and you are wailing instead of solving problems, you are shifted from the leadership cadre to the followers cadre. Leaders solve problems.

With such reflections, Dr. Amadi admit that the ‘cultural mindset’ of the Rwandans ‘is the opposite of the culture of leadership in Nigeria.’ In Nigeria, ‘Leaders wail and complain and blame others. It is not their fault. It is the system. It is the federal government. It is the state government. It is Boko Haram. It is Yoruba agitators. It is Sunday Igboho. It is IPOB. It is even the people who refuse to change. It is the former government. It is the dead- Zik and Awo- who didn’t take us out of Nigeria. It is everyone and everything but the leader,’ if one can add, and followers too. Dr. Amadi further highlighted that even ‘in our personal life we fail the leadership test. Our misfortune has to be the work of witches and wizards, or relatives who didn’t help us or government that is corrupt. We are never responsible for our misfortune.’

Dr. Amadi’s reflection excellently highlight part of Nigeria’s challenges. As Dr. Amadi stressed, until Nigerians ‘focus on finding solutions and less on wailing or blaming’, and ensure that focusing ‘on problem should be to find solution and not for the smug feeling of sanctimony’, our challenges as a nation will not disappear. Instead, our challenges are more likely to get worse. The caution however is that this should not be used in any way to rationalise political choices or block criticisms. In fact, what this means is that in the context of taking responsibility, within our different political choices, including partisan choices, Nigerians should constantly be able to recognise challenges and accordingly initiate or propose appropriate responses to them. Inability to do that will only push citizens, including leaders to be mindless, and not mindful, of Nigeria’s development challenges.

 

Inadvertently, this requires that part of the overarching political goal is to develop Nigerian politics such that both leaders and followers take responsibility. This is not simply about declarations or simply choices of leaders. It is about developing corresponding political initiatives to reorient Nigerians to take responsibility, which entails a clear political vision. Within the context of individual political choices, Nigerians should have the courage to develop recommendations and work to win the support of, first, political leaders to undertake to implement the recommendations, and secondly, win support of Nigerians in general. It should be expected that the requirement for competition will necessitate that each of the partisan choices available to Nigerians, APC, PDP or any other party for that matter, will have to be both responsive and representative.

 

Ideally, being responsive and representative should compel political parties and leaders to be more guided by rules and routine and to that extent ‘sensitive to context and perspective.’ Without going into analysis of Nigeria’s political history, especially under the Fourth Republic, it is hardly disputable that PDP mismanaged and squandered opportunities for sixteen years between 1999 and 2015. No need to go into details as that is not the focus. What is more important at this point is the recognition that it was easy for Nigerians to register their support for APC, and on that account voted PDP out of power in 2015.

 

Of course, there were contextual factors, which made the APC to win the support of Nigerians. These factors include the successful merger of defunct opposition parties – Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Congress for Progressives Change (CPC) and Owelle Rochas Okorocha’s faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) – combined with relatively transparent processes of candidate selection for the 2015 elections, especially the Presidential Candidate, together with all the inspiring campaign promises and the personality of President Muhammadu Buhari as the Presidential Candidate of the APC. With all these, the APC was able to win the 2015 elections and Nigerians had very high expectations. The question is, to what extent did the APC and its governments meet or are meeting the expectations of Nigerians? What are the challenges and how is the APC and its governments responding to these challenges? Compared to PDP, how different is the APC?

 

No need for the familiar debates of PDP vs APC here. The fundamental issue is the question of the extent to which APC leaders and members are responding to challenges. Are we taking responsibility? The good thing is that, in APC, leaders are not in denial of the challenges. This was not the case with PDP before 2015 and up this moment. However, being members of the APC, we should be able to acknowledge too that although, the slogan of the APC is CHANGE, which underlines the commitment of the party and its leadership to bring about change in the country, the programmatic details as articulated in the party’s manifesto require a mobilisation programme in order to win the support of Nigerians.

 

One of the big gaps confronting the APC, which unfortunately makes it easy for opposition politicians to dent the party and its governments’ is the absence of mobilisation programme to engage Nigerians to take responsibility in their different fields of endevours in responding to challenges facing the country. Getting Nigerians to take responsibility in their different fields of endevours in responding to challenges facing the country is a critical success factor in terms of producing the change envisioned by the APC and its leadership as articulated in the manifesto of the party. Inability of Nigerians to take responsibility through initiating appropriate actions raises questions about sustainability of initiatives of government. Beyond questions of sustainability, there is the issue of public awareness and the associated challenges of public support and endorsements. It is not enough for government to initiate programmes and projects as responses to challenges facing the country. Public support and endorsements will be required to make them sustainable, which is not automatic.

 

Part of what should be recognised and acknowledged is that the challenges facing us as a nation are deep rooted. It will require a robust programme of reorientation in the country to sustain the envisioned change APC and its leadership are working to achieve. Once the focus and scope of initiatives is limited to operations of government institutions, and non-governmental institutions continue with business-as-usual practices, most of the challenges facing the country will linger. For instance, take the case of insecurity, which is the most important threat to the survival of the country. As much as combative military operations against insurgency in all its manifestations – banditry, kidnappings, abductions, etc. – is fundamental to restoring order and protection of lives and property in the country, equally important is also how Nigerians across all strata of social life are being mobilised to take responsibility in restoring order and guaranteeing security of life and property in every part of the country. How is government working to raise awareness of Nigerians in terms of what to look out for as danger signals in our different communities? What kind of conducts by citizens, including community leaders constitute risk factors and therefore indicative of security challenges? What should be done, where and who to report to? What other initiatives should citizens take?

 

Most of these issues are at best taken for granted. There is hardly any planned campaign taking place at national level to mobilise Nigerians with specific sets of detailed responses. Because issues of public awareness around these issues are taken for granted, everybody, both leaders and followers are just ‘complaining and wailing’ as Dr. Amadi rightly observed. Some have gone beyond ‘complaining and wailing’ to propagate false narratives, which can at best be distractive, if not subversive to any campaign or initiative to end insecurity in the country. Unfortunately, most of these false narratives are allowed in the public space without strong efforts to correct them. Take some of the claims by religious and community leaders that insecurity in the country is directed against particular ethnic and religion groups. These are very treacherous narratives, which should be combatted not through military operations but civic engagements with religious and community leaders.

 

Absence of engagements with religious and ethnic groups is more and more creating factors in the country, which are disorientating and undermining the authority of conventional structures and representatives of Nigerian society, including non-governmental institutions. In their place, unaccountable and self-appointed leaders are emerging and culture of public blackmails against conventional structures and representatives is becoming rampant in the country. It was Benjamin Arditi, the Mexican political scientist, in the book, Politics on the Edge of Liberalism, who cautioned that ‘situations of disorientation can facilitate the appeal of charismatic leaders who present themselves as self-styled saviours, or lead people to seek the sense of belonging offered by aggressive forms of nationalism, uncompromising religious sects, or violent urban tribes.’

 

One of the major challenges facing Nigeria today is that ‘self-styled saviours’ projecting themselves as leaders campaigning to win ‘a sense of belonging’ based on aggressive ‘nationalism, uncompromising religious sects, or violent urban tribes’ are springing up in every part of the country. This is partly the issue around the Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho phenomena in the South-East and South-West. Unfortunately, because such phenomena are allowed without any counter mobilisational strategy, they are increasingly becoming threats to political leaders. To some extent, they are also becoming models of responses to Nigeria’s challenges by ethnic and religious groups, which is dangerous.

 

Therefore, beyond the question of insecurity, the broader issue of mobilising Nigerians to develop new orientation require a programmatic national coverage. Given some of the challenges, especially in relation to, for instance, engaging youth in the country, how can it be handled? This will require partnership with youth organisations. Who are these youth organisations and what will be required for government to be able to develop the kind of partnership that can produce the desired outcomes of changing Nigeria? What are the potentials of using the nation’s educational system to facilitate or strengthen engagements with youth groups in the country? Given the challenge of frequent closures of our educational institutions due to strikes by teachers and university lecturers, how will it affect government’s mobilisation of youths in the country? Above all, how can engagement with youths address the challenge of creating employment opportunities in the country?

 

Generally, ‘situations of disorientation’ in the country has created problems whereby the character of Nigerian civil society, including the labour movement has radically change. Most of the organisations that used to be knowledge-driven, based on which they have strong connections with academic institutions, are bereft of knowledgeable viewpoints. At least up to the late 1990s, most of these organisations were very active in policy engagements through campaigning for alternative policy frameworks. When they criticise government policy, they do not only explain reasons for such criticisms, but also propose alternatives. This is hardly the case today. The main approaches of the work of civil society are mainly to abuse and condemn whatever government is doing with hardly any recommendation for alternatives. If anyone is looking for evidence of how ‘sublime values’ have retreated form Nigerian public life, just look at the character of today’s Nigerian civil society and labour movement today and compare them with what used to obtain in the past.

Beyond civil society organisations and labour movement, the sad reality is also that quality of scholarship in our academic institutions is, to say the least, below standards. We have professors, researchers and lecturers who cannot engage in any useful enquiry about the challenges facing the country. Many so-called Professors, researchers and lecturers, rather than working to provide new insights about challenges facing country and to that extent propose alternative responses, they join the ‘complaining and wailing’ community. They speak in languages that are offensive to government and political leaders with unsubstantiated allegations.

 

Part of what has been lost is the fact that categories of leaders of non-governmental organisation who used to have strong values that envisioned a prosperous country have disappeared. Instead, we have many leaders of non-governmental organisation who see nothing good in Nigeria and its political leadership. The promote campaign for hatred against the country and its leadership. The culture of political intimidation using protests and strikes have become rampant. Most demands by non-governmental organisations come with threats of strikes and protests in the first instance. In the context of mobilisation to produce change in Nigeria therefore, what will be required to change the orientation of leaders of non-governmental organisations in the country for instance? Being members of APC, how can we engage our leaders differently without joining the ‘complaining and wailing’ group of Nigerians? If, like other Nigerians, APC members join the ‘complaining and wailing’ community, which is largely the case, how can we take responsibility to ensure that the commitment of our party and our leaders to change Nigeria is achieved?

 

To be different, APC members should be able to appeal to the party’s leaders to urgently develop a a strong mobilisation campaign that can connect citizens with all the initiatives of government. As part of such mobilisation campaign, raising public awareness about the initiatives’ government is taking should be a priority. The second thing is also to be able to provide feedback to government about the effectiveness of initiatives taken by APC governments’ so far. To what extent are government initiatives responding to challenges? How are government initiatives’ being able to envision new realities or at least give new insights to old realities? What are the expected roles of citizens in their different fields of endevours to achieve envisioned realities? In particular, how is government mobilisation programme succeeding in securing the buy-in of especially non-governmental leaders to initiate supportive actions to resolve challenges?

As members of APC, we need to take responsibility and acknowledge that challenges facing the country require a strong mobilisation campaign as a fundamental requirement for bringing about change in the country. This is, at the moment, almost taken for granted. In fact, most of the distortions going on today in Nigerian public spaces, which attempts to dismiss the APC and its governments as a failure is largely because of weak or absence of strong mobilisation programme. Being able to acknowledge this reality should be supported with good recommendation on how best to develop strong mobilisation programme to rally the support of Nigerians to address challenges facing the country.

 

Noting the existence of the National Orientation Agency (NOA), with the statutory functions of mobilising public support for government policies, programmes and activities, among others, how can it be transformed to get it to develop and drive the kind of strong mobilisation programme, which can begin to re-orient the mindsets of Nigerians and get everyone to take responsibility? The question of why the NOA was unable to develop a strong mobilisation programme since 2015 should be engaged mainly in the context of ensuring that the campaign support Nigerians to embrace positive behaviours and to that extent therefore envisioned a prosperous future for the country.

 

How can this be achieved? Perhaps one of the things that need to be done is to completely re-organise the NOA. As part of the re-organisation, it may be necessary to be moved out of the Ministry of Information and make it a specialise agency of the Federal Government directly under the Presidency. Making it a specilise agency under the Presidency will strengthen its powers to be able to engage all agencies of government at all levels. Its current status as an agency under the Ministry of Information limits its powers and to that extent its capacity.

 

The second issue is that there has to be a review of its activities, personnel and general orientation. Elementary logic would suggest a complete overhaul, otherwise, it will simply continue with business-as-usual approaches. Once its approaches are business-as-usual, it will not be able to drive any campaign for change in Nigeria. Largely because it is conducting itself based on business-as-usual approaches, it is hardly present in most of the critical public debates about challenges facing the country. Beyond being absent in most public debates, it is hardly under any consideration in terms of organisations regarded with any visible roles in addressing challenges facing the country. For instance, in the case of insecurity, does the NOA outline for itself a kind of checklist of what to do when incidences of insecurity emerge in any part of the country?

 

All these need to be put in place. It is not to lament about any failing or rationalising why we have what exist today. As members of APC, it should be about responding to the reality facing us and ensure that we appropriately take responsibility. We must engage the issues with all the confidence that our political leaders, especially President Buhari will favourably consider these proposals and strengthen the capacity of the party and its governments to mobilise Nigerians. The important appeal that should be made is that failure to develop a strong mobilisation programme will continue to create gaps that will make the voices of political opposition louder in the country, even as they don’t have any clear proposed alternatives. They will simply continue to promote divisive politics based on mis-information and falsehood. It is painful that with all the initiatives of APC governments, especially Federal Government under President Buhari, the claim of any failure can be made. Unlike all past governments since 1999, APC Federal Government is successfully implementing more initiatives and projects. How can the APC government be successful in implementing almost all the projects past governments have failed to execute be a failure?

 

If APC and its governments are being alleged to be a failure, what is the specific alternative being presented by the opposition to APC? The narrative of failure of APC and its governments must be corrected based on a strong mobilisation programme. Nigerians just need to ‘focus on finding solutions and less on wailing or blaming’. Nigerians must be protected from ‘self-styled saviours’ – both politicians and other desperate categories, whose mission can only be self-serving. A stich in time saves nine!

[Salihu Lukman]

Labour Issues and Need for Reorientation in Nigeria

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

On August 2, 2021, the National Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) began indefinite nationwide strike over demands for improved conditions, payment of salaries ranging between two to nineteen months by some state governments, failure to domesticate Medical Residency Training (MRT) Act 2017 in states, among others. Less than four months back, between April 1 and 10, 2021, the Resident Doctors were on strike over the same issues and the strike was called off following a memorandum of understanding signed by the Federal Government and the leadership of the NARD led by Dr. Uyilawa Okhuaihesuyi.

 

Resident Doctors are supposedly doctors in training, if you like interns, who provide direct care to patients covering diagnosis, management and treatment. They work in intensive care units, emergency departments, operating rooms and general patient wards supervised by senior residents and specialists. There are estimated 16,800 resident doctors in Nigeria, which represent about 40% of the total (42,000) registered doctors in the country. Without any doubt, they are a very critical pillar of healthcare delivery services in hospitals whose absence always result in shutting down hospitals across the country.

 

The frequent strikes by Resident Doctors and health workers generally are unfortunate and avoidable and always lead to preventable deaths of patients in the country. Given the cost to human life from strikes by health workers, it is quite alarming that strikes actions in a sector as important as health would be taking place at all. This is a sector that by every standard should be classified as essential, based on which there should be special legal restrictions regarding labour actions such as strikes. Healthcare, utility services such as electricity and water supply, law enforcement, firefighting and food services are all categorised both by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and United Nations (UN) as essential services.

 

Being categorised as essential services does not prevent workers in the sector from being organised under a trade union. The existence of a union should be mainly for the purpose of collective bargaining to improve the working conditions of workers and negotiate higher wages. In addition, the existence of trade unions in these sectors would also ensure that collective bargaining promote the growth and competitiveness in the sector, so that they can expand employment opportunities, productivity and wages.

 

Part of the questions that cannot be ignored, will be the issue of both the legal and institutional frameworks for collective bargaining in Nigeria. Is it a case of gaps in Nigeria’s labour laws such that operations of essential service sectors could be reduced to normal operations associated with other lesser sectors whose activities doesn’t pose any direct threat to human life? Or is it a case that there is the necessary legal framework but weak institutional capacity for both enforcement of the laws and regulations of the conducts of both employers and employees in sectors classified as essential services?

 

One of the things that must be acknowledged is that Nigeria has all the needed laws and perhaps the most progressive labour laws in the world. These are provided under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended, Trade Union Act, Labour (Employment) Act, Factory Act, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Trade Disputes (Essential Services) Act, etc. Procedural rules and regulations governing workplaces, including negotiations between employers and employees are provided. Specifically, ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organise and bargain collectively is ratified under the Trade Unions Act. Provisions of the Act, Cap 437 Section 24:l, guarantees unconditional recognition of trade unions by employers. One of the things that can be deduced is that practice of collective bargaining between workers’ and employers’ organisations is not restricted to unions registered under the law, which is why professional organisation such as NARD could negotiate and enter into agreements that are binding on work organisations where their members are employed.

 

A major challenge of Nigeria’s labour relations may have to do with issues of over centralisation and institutional capacity to manage, regulate and facilitate negotiations and agreements. The issue of over centralisation will continue to create challenges largely because the negotiation between workers’ and employers’ organisations are no longer informed by empirical reality of resources available. There is a mindset in the country that government has all the resources required to implement agreements. Most Nigerians, including leaders of workers’ organisations and their members believe that the problem is that the resources are being diverted by political leaders. The consequence is that almost all collective bargaining negotiation end up as power contest between workers’ and employers’ organisation.

 

Because of being power contests, conditions of indeterminateness as propounded by the late English Economist, W. H. Hutt in the book The Theory of Collective Bargaining, is created. According to him, conditions of indeterminateness make “sharing of gross returns of industry between capital and labour … in perpetual flux and never have time to settle into a state of stable equilibrium. … to a very considerable extent … determined by circumstances which may fairly be called fortuitous, and may be greatly influenced by a bargain between the employer and the employed. Consequently, almost every negotiation and agreement produce new sets of disagreements and disputes between workers and their organisations. This is largely where Nigeria found itself.

 

Although under the law, provision of dispute settlement is required to go through processes of mediation, conciliation and compulsory adjudication through the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) and National Industrial Court (NIC), the reality is the almost complete absence of any mechanism to negotiate resolution or at the least implement agreement. Over the years however, conciliation and mediation, as functions of labour administration, have greatly declined due to lethargic factors largely because of indecisiveness of Ministry of Labour. For instance, the processes for access to both the IAP and NIC, being the two legal bodies with the primary responsibility of dispute settlement that are legally binding are mainly through the Minister of Labour. It is curious to ask, out of all the plethora of industrial disputes leading to strikes, how many have been filed before the IAP and NIC to pre-empt strikes?

 

In addition, given that awards by both IAP and NIC are not made directly to the parties but through the Minister, who has the right to refer the parties back to both the IAP and NIC, how many judgements have been obtained and to what extend has the Minister or his representatives taken actions to refer parties back to IAP and NIC to enforce existing judgements and therefore avoid strikes? Without going into all the legal technicalities, which are the vocation of lawyers, in several cases the Ministry of Labour is laid back and hardly intervene to prevent strikes from taking place through brokering negotiations between workers’ and employers’ organisation until strike commences.

 

Two of the most recently celebrated strike actions in the country may have been averted had the Ministry of Labour enforced provisions of the relevant laws in the country to compel resumption of negotiations between unions and employers, including government in the country. The first celebrated case was the ‘five-day warning strike’ by Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) against Kaduna State Government of May 16, 2021, over allegations of wrongful dismissals of employees of the state government. The second is the current indefinite strike by the NARD. In both the two cases, there is hardly any reported meeting between the Ministry of Labour and parties to the disputes before the expiration of the ultimatum given by representatives of workers – NLC and NARD. In the case of the ‘five-day warning strike’ by NLC against Kaduna State Government, the intervention by Ministry of Labour came only after the strike commences and a meeting eventually held in Abuja on Wednesday, May 18 when the strike was already three days old. Good enough, following the intervention by the Ministry of Labour, the strike was suspended on Thursday, May 19, 2021, by which time so much damage had already been caused, including disruption of essential services by health, electricity, water services workers in the state.

 

It is possible that the Ministry has had some consultations and initiated processes of dispute settlement that are not reported. Be that as it may, to the extent that they were unable to pre-empt the strikes, they were ineffective. Being ineffective also made it possible for leaders of unions and workers to organisation to concentrate more in terms of power struggles between them and government than engage in collective bargaining negotiations. As a result, disputes between states governments and their workers are made disputes involving federal government and citizens, which also cover employees in private sector. In the case of NLC versus Kaduna State Government, although the strike was scheduled to commence on May 16, electricity workers who are not employed by the state government commenced the strike action on May 15 ahead of even the aggrieved employees of the state government. Aviation workers who are also not part of the state government employees and therefore not having any legitimate grievances against the state government, stopped all flights into Kaduna on May 16.

 

Similarly, in the case of the current indefinite strike by NARD, the dispute is largely with state governments and specifically, Abia, Imo, Ondo and Ekiti States have been identified as the states with poor conditions. States that are yet to domesticate the MRT Act 2017 are also known. Of course, there are also issues between members of NARD employed in Federal Governments. But those issues could hardly justify why the NARD should lump every all states and federal establishments in a single basket of dispute. Part of what is clearly a major crisis is the fact that although in most cases, disputes between workers and employers are limited mainly to some few state governments, somehow, in complete violation of legal provisions or industrial relations practices and conventions, wildcat national strikes beyond the organisations affected are declared. Even when strikes produce human casualties, including deaths, both leaders of unions and employers, including governments behave as if it is normal. It is difficult to avoid the question, why should demands for job protection, better conditions of service and higher remuneration become more important than human life in Nigeria?

 

Above all, the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria provided by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, under Part B (Professional Conduct) defined professional negligence to include ‘Failure to attend promptly to a patient requiring urgent attention when the practitioner was in a position to do so.’ How can this important ethical requirement be reconciled with the whimsical disposition of Resident Doctors in Nigeria to go on strike, including what is clearly a solidarity strike? It is very easy to put all the blame on government and political leaders in the country. There is every reason to recognise the challenge that always come with the reality of governments operating both as a sovereign authority as well as employer of labour. Being sovereign authority, makes it easy to associate governments with repressive practices, which in the context of management of labour relations result in violations or refusals to implement agreements.

 

The reality is that, increasingly, recognising that government and political leaders in Nigeria would have taken wrong steps that breached conditions of employment, does that then become the licence to sacrifice the lives of innocent Nigerians by withdrawing services in Nigerian hospitals? No doubt, Medical Doctors, and health workers generally, require special attention. It is very demeaning that the required special attention is being reduced to languages of industrial relations bordering on cheap demands for so-called improved working conditions and higher wages. That Resident Doctors and health workers in Nigeria are being discussed in very elementary vocabulary reflects the endemic empirical and conceptual crisis the country is facing. As a nation, we must elevate the status of Resident Doctors and health workers in the country. This goes beyond the realm of any institutional arrangement for the practice of collective bargaining. It is more about political decisions based on which special status and privileges are provided for special category of workers.

 

It is in fact, the privilege of enjoying those special status that justify placing the sector as an essential service sector. No doubt, provisions of the Trade Dispute (Essential Services) Act would make some of those provisions, which may need periodic review. It is scandalous that the agitation by the leaders of NARD is not about qualitatively reviewing those conditions that goes beyond cheap Naira and Kobo negotiations. Eventually, no doubt, everything comes down to Naira and Kobo. But there are provisions with very high monetary value, which may not cost a dime to government. For instance, assuming that being a Resident Doctor or a health worker in a state government establishment qualifies one to be on priority list for land allocation for the purpose of building personal accommodation. Also, assuming state governments can facilitate financing arrangement with banks to NARD and other organisations of health workers for their members with valid Certificate of Occupancy to build personal accommodations. There are so many non-monetary incentives, which have very high monetary value to the beneficiaries that can be arranged.

 

Sadly, both governments and leaders of workers organisations in these essential service sectors are locked in the limited negotiations of monetary awards, which at best whittled down the profile of a very special category of an important sector such as health, which is required to provide uninterrupted services dearly needed by all citizens for our survival and wellbeing. To be endowed by God Almighty with the intelligence to become a medical doctor or health worker must not be devalued in anyway. Not devaluing these category of personnel means there are superior demands being negotiated, which may mean zero costs to employers but higher value to workers beyond wages and current conditions of services. This is what should be on the table for negotiation, which an agreement should make it easy for all state governments to implement, based on which every worker in the health sector is proud to provide uninterrupted services, no matter what.

 

The challenge before the nation is not about lamentation. It is more about creatively finding solutions. It is worrisome, that Nigerians could easily justify why strike actions are taking place in essential service sectors such as health. There is the need to appeal to all Nigerians, not just political leaders, we need to all take steps to stop the current madness in the country whereby we can resort to actions that consume human lives. If the argument is that we have problems created by our political leaders, we should ask the question, is our actions solving the problem or creating new ones? In most cases, it is more likely that we adopt actions which basically transform us into the status of our political leaders as excellently argued by the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire in the classic book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, when he argued that “The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors. Liberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressor.”

 

When one listen to arguments canvassed by leaders of workers’ organisation in Nigeria, including NLC and NARD, all that one hears is the display of raw power with hardly any empirical or conceptual evidence highlighting a vision of how the problems we face as a nation can be solved. Rather than providing a roadmap of how problems can be solved, ego and loud voices of people who can best qualify for some physical contests with supposed opponnents have become the main attributes. Any opinion to the contrary is condemned and dismissed. This is the new face of leaders’ workers organisations in Nigeria. Street protests and strikes ahead of any negotiations are now very common. There is the need to reorient the practice of labour relations in Nigeria. A situation whereby because citizens are angry with government and political leaders, essential services are withdrawn, and lives of citizens cheaply sacrificed must stop.

 

It is quite frustrating, when political appointees, such as Ministers of Labour and Health are unable to proactively pre-empt strikes of health workers in the country. As loyal members of APC, being the governing party, we must appeal to our Ministers of Labour and Health to wake up to their responsibility and end this political embarrassment coming with huge cost to lives to citizens. Ministers of Labour, Health and all stakeholders must as a matter of urgency lock themselves in the most qualitative form of negotiations with all workers in the health sector to restore some minimum standards in the sector. This is not simply about negotiating terms and conditions of services of health workers in the country. It more about creatively ensuring that these are sectors that are essential services sectors with commensurate benefits that is beyond monetary provisions.

 

Similarly, Nigerians must appeal to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria to take all the necessary measures to restore ethical conducts of all its registered members. A situation where conducts of medical practitioners, being also members of trade unions, conflict with the Code of Ethics they subscribed to must be resolved in favour of protecting the lives of Nigerians. Under no circumstance should a registered medical doctor who is a member of the Medical and Dental Council conduct himself or herself in manners that neglect the primary responsibility of attending to sick persons in Nigerian hospitals.

 

In the end, priority attention must be given to the issue of redefining Nigerian federalism to ensure that labour issues, including negotiations for wages and terms of conditions of services and resolving all challenges that come with it are moved to the concurrent list of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended. A situation whereby terms agreed with Federal Government are used for state government employees will always create problems of implementation. State governments need to be more creative to introduce new incentives, which are not monetary but perhaps having higher monetary values than what obtains in federal establishments. There is a wide scope for initiatives beyond the question of monetary value of employment.

[Salihu Lukman]

Civil Society and Nigeria’s Democratic Development

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

David G. Green, the head of Civitas – The Institute for the Study of Civil Society, British Think Tank in the book, Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics, made the point that ‘histories of welfare provision tend to equate the improvement of welfare services with the growth of government involvement. Over the years the welfare state filled the gaps supposedly left by the market. More careful examination of the evidence, however, shows that the reality was very different. People in need because of their inability to earn enough to support themselves, whether temporarily or permanently, were supported in a rich variety of ways. Family and neighbours played their part but because their help was informal and undocumented historians have tended to underestimate it. Charity was also important and it is often supposed that organised welfare before the welfare state was left to charities, but by far the most important organised method by which people met the needs of their fellows was mutual aid.’

 

What this mean is that levels of welfare of citizens is a product of combined initiatives of both government and non-governmental actors. In other words, people take care of one another voluntarily and reciprocally (mutual aid), which provide welfare support and improve general wellbeing of citizens. While it is easy to estimate governmental initiatives, services of non-governmental actors are most times undervalued, especially in less developed economies. These non-governmental actors are mainly referred to as civil society covering voluntary associations such as human right, faith-based, media, community-based, labour, professional bodies, women, youths, persons with disability and other forms of non-governmental associations. Considered as the “third sector” of society different from government and business, providing voluntary services, it is referred to as civil society. Its legitimacy is largely derived based on the knowledge, experience and expertise they mobilise, which implies that they have requisite skills to undertake initiatives in their chosen fields. This also suggest that they have the capacity to mobilise the needed resources, both financial, material and human for the execution of activities.

 

For African societies however, civil society organising is a very recent development largely because mutual aid was commonly abundant given the communal nature of our societies. Without necessarily going into sociological analysis, it is important to highlight that welfare provision in Africa is innately part of the orientation of our societies. But as African societies grew into modern nation states, the communal orientation of African societies started disappearing. Capacities of families, neighbours and old traditional institutions to participate in mutual aid activities lessen. With the growing supremacy of the role of governments and other modern institutions, new modern structures of voluntary initiatives emerged, which equates to what is regarded as civil society.

 

Part of the regulatory requirement is tht these new modern structures are expected to ensure that service delivery to citizens through voluntary work conform to minimum standards and comply with provisions of the law. Over the years, the debate has always been about whether regulatory requirements are going to be used by governments to trample on the rights of citizens to freely associate. It is crucial, however, to recognise that part of the context of the debate borders on the question of accountability in terms of the broader responsibility for these organisations to be answerable to citizens or groups that they serve.

 

In terms of therefore, the emergence of new modern structures of voluntary initiatives, a major characteristic is that although civil society organisations are expected to be mass (membership) based, increasingly, they have become small bureaucracies with hardly any requirement for recruitment of members. Depending on levels of compliance with legal provisions, being small bureaucracies, makes accountability largely notional. Considerably, this also weakens relationship with the people they seek to serve, which raises concern about impact of activities on the welfare of citizens. There are, of course, cases where activities of civil society are designed purely based on the availability of funding, often from foreign donors. Naturally, requirements to access donor funding, imposes its own accountability requirements. Consequently, while relationship between these organisations and people they seek to serve may be weak, relationship with donors tend to be strong.

 

With the expectation of being knowledgeable, civil society should also have clear vision of what is required to facilitate national development. Since democracy is the most important enabler of national development, combined with the expectation that civil society organisations, themselves anticipated to be membership organisations and therefore democratic, ideally, they should serve as models of representation, hence important promoters of democratic development. Their strength or otherwise is a critical determinant of how they can contribute to democratic development. This is partly because these are organisations that should have capacity for policy engagements through advocacy to influence governments’ choices as part of the broader strategy to improve the welfare of citizens.

 

Part of the reality in Nigeria is that weak institutional capacity of both government and the emerging structures of civil society have considerably made policy engagements very minimal. In so many ways, poor progress in managing relations between government and civil society in Nigeria has also produced a new reality whereby Nigerian civil society groups are increasingly being replaced by international non-governmental organisations. Unlike in the past where these international non-governmental organisations provide financial support to Nigerian organisations to implement activities, these international non-governmental organisations now setup structures in Nigeria, hire Nigerians, including leaders of civil society to run these offices and implement projects.

 

Largely oriented based on conditions determined by regulatory requirements of the countries where they originate, these international non-governmental organisations have become dominant players in the work of Nigerian civil society organisations. Although, the National Planning Commission (NPC) is statutorily required to serve as the regulatory agency for these international non-governmental organisations, in many respects, issues of institutional capacity of the NPC continue to undermine effectiveness of these organisations especially in terms of ensuring that high impact on the welfare needs of Nigerians is achieved.

 

Weak institutional capacity in terms of enforcing both organisational and activity standards also significantly contribute to changing the orientation of civil society in Nigeria. Part of the factors that have contributed to weakening institutional capacity of both regulatory structures of government as well as engagement between Nigerian government and civil society include experiences under repressive military regimes, which created compelling conditions for the focus on human rights and prodemocracy campaigns, especially following the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election by the military government of former President Ibrahim Babangida. Most of the national civil society groups that led the campaigns for human rights and prodemocracy in the country, which helped to usher in the current Fourth Republic, although began as membership organisations, eventually became bureaucracies oriented around projects.

 

Sources of funding for the work of these organisations were largely from foreign donors. Local funding is hardly available. This made civil society organisations to be project oriented, governed by a board whose membership are small. Accountability gradually become limited to the boards and funding sources. Minimum engagement with government, which is needed to protect civil society organisation from government control makes demand by civil society for initiatives to negotiate any stronger relationship with Nigerian government very unattractive. This also legitimise the belief that any consideration of financial support from Nigerian government to civil society as very detrimental.

 

This is the negative orientation, which has continued to block debates in the country about considerations for improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society. Sadly, this negative orientation has pushed leaders of civil society in Nigeria to develop a mindset, which encourages them to positively relate with foreign organisations that are directly linked to governments in their countries but despise considering developing positive or structured relationship with Nigerian government. It is basically a belief that accept relationship with foreign governments as good but relationship with Nigerian government is bad.

 

Interestingly, however, individual leaders of civil society could have positive relations with functionaries of Nigerian government. If it is okay for individual leaders of civil society to have positive relations with functionaries of Nigerian government, why should civil society continue to resist negotiating improved relations with Nigerian government? If Nigerian civil society can accept funding from foreign governments, why should it be difficult for them to take steps to negotiate structured local funding, which may include contributions from Nigerian government?

 

The problem of poor relations between Nigerian government and civil society has produced combination of poor funding and very weak organisations of civil society in the country. In terms of poor funding, although, there are possibilities, which can include access to portions of corporate social responsibility funds provided by big corporations in the country, these are funds that are only made available to some few organisations that may have even been formed with the active support of government, whose mission may be anything but altruistic. Therefore, capacity or competence of the organisations that access some of the available local funding to deliver services may be questionable. Substantially, access to corporate social responsibility funds, could provide opportunity to create legitimate sources of financial support for the work of Nigerian civil society. At the moment, because access to these funds is based on discretionary decisions of the management of the organisations making the grant, misuse and mismanagement both by the provider and the recipient become the dominant feature.

 

With all our realities in Nigeria, the consequence is that there are no guaranteed local funding sources available to support the work of civil society organisations. Sadly, there is no campaign in the country to create domestic funding sources for the work of civil society. Somehow, the background of repressive military rule, which made campaigns for human rights and democracy to become the primary focus of the work of civil society, the negative mindset that translate to opposition to Nigerian government is deep-rooted among civil society leaders. Civil society leaders believe that opposition to government is a requirement for their work. On the other hand, government functionaries have contempt for civil society and their leaders.

 

It was, George Soros, in his book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, who made the point that ‘Fallibility has a negative sound. Indeed, every advance we make in better understanding the relationship between thinking and reality has a negative connotation because it involves a retreat from perfection. But this negative interpretation is itself a manifestation of our fallibility. Recognising our fallibility has a positive aspect that ought to outweigh the loss of an illusory perfection. What is imperfect can be improved, and the improvement can manifest itself not only in our thinking but also in reality. If perfect understanding is beyond our reach, the room for improvement is infinite.’

 

It is true that relationship with government, especially when it come with access to funding has some risks. Part of the risk includes the loss of moral authority, which can make civil society vulnerable and susceptible to being controlled by government and political leaders. A major problem is when being independent from government is applied in a way that blocked relationship with Nigerian government but encourages relationship with foreign governments, which may have similar, or even worse risks that could be interpreted to project Nigerian civil society and their leaders as unpatriotic. Why should relationship with Nigerian government be considered bad, but relationship with foreign governments good? Most activists in civil society pretentiously overlooked this issue largely because good relationship with foreign governments enable them to access grants from organisations such as the UK Department for International Development (DFID), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), European Union (EU), etc. These are basically funding directly provided by governments of UK, US and countries under the European Union.

 

Why should Nigerian civil society resent financial support from Nigerian government but accept from UK, US and EU governments? Isn’t it possible to negotiate conditions that makes funding from Nigerian government acceptable? Part of the disadvantage of refusal to consider negotiating stronger relationship between Nigerian civil society organisations and Nigerian government is that work of these organisations are dictated by priorities set by foreign donor organisations. Whether funded activities of Nigerian civil society organisations accommodate the priority needs of Nigerians is entirely a different matter. The fact is, having stronger relationship with Nigerian government could require periodic agenda setting negotiations to determine both priority areas of work for Nigerian civil society as well as the volume of funding to be mobilised. Negotiating these issues may considerably contribute to influencing government’s policy choices. In addition to policy choices, stronger engagement between Nigerian government and civil society could also impact positively on the operational conduct of government, which may make government more disposed to engagement with Nigerians.

 

The reality is that inability to consider negotiating relationship between Nigerian civil society and Nigerian government is the manifestation of our fallibility. To begin to positively shift to ‘outweigh the loss of an illusory perfection’, will be to debate these issues. Negative mindset of completely projecting resentment to relating with Nigerian government condemn the country to below standards frameworks, with no hope of any improvement in site. The consequence is that although, there are some civil society organisations in the country that can access relatively large grants from foreign donors, the outlook of these organisations in terms of both organisational behaviour and service delivery to citizens are hardly any different from all the negative attributes associated with Nigerian government. There is the need to push Nigerian civil society organisations to change the orientation of operating with a mindset of being in opposition to Nigerian government. Initiating negotiation to develop a functional relationship with Nigerian government so that the imperfect framework, which undermine capacity to mobilise local resources can be improved.

 

Imagine a situation, whereby a national framework is instituted, which for instance make it possible for the pooling of a ratio of corporate social responsibility funds in the country to support the work of Nigerian civil society organisation. Such a framework should necessarily have both management framework and defined criteria for access. Also, think of the possibility that the management framework would have representative structures and some levels of democratic control, which could strengthen ownership by civil society. Development of a framework that can guarantee the independence of Nigerian civil society from interference by government while at the same time mobilising local funding is possible. Such funding could be further supported by government through appropriate annual provisions based on existing budgetary processes, which could be negotiated by the management framework.

 

A wide scope of possibility exists to negotiate improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society. The question is whether, as a nation, we want to open the debate beyond the narrow mindset that project Nigerian government as a bad partner to civil society, but foreign governments good partners. If democracy is about engagement, negotiation and agreement, why is it not important to consider expanding the scope of Nigerian democracy to prioritise negotiating better and stronger relationship between Nigerian government and civil society?

 

It was Civitas’ David Green, in the book We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now! How Political Correctness is Undermining our Liberal Culture, who made the point that ‘Victimhood as a political status is best understood as the outcome of a political strategy by some groups aimed at gaining preferential treatment. In free societies groups often organise to gain advantages for themselves, but the increase in the number and power of groups seeking politically‐mandated victimhood raises some deeper questions… Group victimhood is not compatible with our heritage of liberal democracy in three particular ways: it is inconsistent with the moral equality that underpins liberalism; it weakens our democratic culture; and it undermines legal equality.’

 

In many respects, the thesis of victimhood as a political strategy to attract patronage or preferential access to support by foreigners who have basically nothing to lose if Nigeria is bad is the dominant orientation of civil society in Nigeria. It could be debated if without the risk of losing anything, foreign support can come with any superior commitment to Nigeria’s democratic development. A rational assessment will suggest that commitment of foreign organisations and governments would need to be balanced with corresponding support to push Nigerian government to strengthen engagement with civil society.

 

To be fair to most of the foreign organisations and governments providing support to Nigerian civil society groups, there is evidence of support to government as well. Whether the support is balanced such that it is facilitating improved relationships between Nigerian government and civil society is completely a different matter. May be, as part of the strategic goal of pushing most of these foreign organisations and governments to support Nigerian civil society to overcome current victimhood mindset, an appeal needs to be made to these foreign organisations and governments to also ensure that support to both Nigerian government and civil society include initiatives to negotiate improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society.

 

Collaboration between government and civil society, if structured and organised and the independence of civil society groups are guaranteed, could facilitate strengthened engagement between Nigerian government and citizens and will be an important requirement for the development of Nigerian democracy. How can political initiatives to negotiate improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society organisation be introduced? As a party founded on the vision of change, there is no reason why APC should not prioritise development of initiatives towards improved relations with Nigerian civil society. Developing improved relations with Nigerian civil society should be part of the strategic goal of developing Nigeria’s democracy and ensuring that Nigerian politics is being refined and new democratic frontiers, which should promote engagement between Nigerian government and citizens are created. Inability to refine Nigerian politics and create new democratic frontiers would continue to legitimise the mindset of opposition to Nigerian government by civil society.

 

Political leaders in the country should be encouraged to develop a more positive disposition towards civil society in the country. To achieve that, the National Orientation Agency (NOA) should be able to provide leadership in initiating and implementing activities to facilitate negotiations for improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society. Part of the objective should also be to enhance processes of political leadership recruitment in the country, which are hardly planned and largely impulsive. This can be achieved if political political parties in Nigeria broaden membership mobilisation to include engagement with Nigerian civil society as a strategy for leadership recruitment?

 

Improved relationship between Nigerian government and civil society groups can be designed to reorient civil society to return to being membership based with high measure of democratic control by the members. Being democratically controlled by members should mean that activities of Nigerian civil society organisations accommodate the priority needs of Nigerians. This should translate to high impact on levels of welfare of citizens from activities of Nigerian civil society. Capacity for policy engagement will be high.

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigerian Politics and Fallacy of PDP – APC Semblance

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

Partisan Problem of One-Dimensional Politics

 

In his recent book, Arguing with Zombies: Economics, Politics and the Fight for Better Future, the American economists, Paul Krugman drew attention to what he refers to as ‘one-dimensional politics’, which is about opinions and not facts. According to him, ‘everything is political. In many cases, accepting what the evidence says about …question will be seen as a partisan act.’ Although the United States was the focus of Krugman’s analysis, one-dimensional politics such that accepting evidence become partisan, goes beyond the US. At least, it is also the reality in Nigeria, largely because opinions dominate almost all political conversations in the country. For instance, there is the widespread belief that the two leading parties in the country – Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC) – are the same. Some analysts have gone further to argue that both parties have failed Nigerians.

 

Prof. Attahiru Jega, former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), in a BBC Hausa Service interview on August 2, 2021, reechoed this position with the submission that ‘the two big parties had failed to engender good governance and development in the country.’ Consequently, he called on Nigerians not to ‘give their trust to the parties again.’ Coming from Prof. Jega, the claim that both the PDP and APC are the same and had failed Nigerians should not be taken lightly. Prof. Jega wasn’t just the former Chairman of INEC. He is a respected political scientist internationally. He is both a theoretician and practitioner whose commitment to Nigeria’s development cannot be faulted. He grew through the ranks of radical activism to become the leader, both intellectually and in the practical field of politics and was able to inspire and influence the emergence of generation of both activists and leaders in the country. As Chairman of INEC, it cannot be disputed that he successfully led the reform of electoral management in the country.

 

As should be expected, both the PDP and APC dismissed Prof. Jega’s submissions that the two parties had failed Nigerians. Speaking through Mr. Kola Ologbondiyan and Sen. John Akpanudoedehe, respectively PDP National Publicity Secretary and APC Secretary of Caretaker/Extraordinary National Convention Planning Committee, they both argued that Prof. Jega was wrong to conclude that the two parties had failed Nigerians. PDP went further to accuse Prof. Jega of being ignorant of the ‘significant milestones’ it recorded during its reign and contended that ‘it is indeed unfortunate that … a professor of Political Science could portray an ignorance of the manifest contrasts between the robust fortunes of our nation under the PDP and the wasteland she has become under the APC.’

 

Somehow, both responses from the two officials of the PDP and APC failed to disproof Prof. Jega’s declaration that PDP and APC have failed Nigerians. A clear demonstration of the problem of one-dimensional politics, which is just about opinion and even when there is evidence to prove otherwise, individual opinion of leaders, which was what the responses of both Mr. Ologbondiyan and Sen. Akpanudoedehe represents, will instead be the reference. The responses from Mr. Ologbondiyan and Sen. Akpanudoedehe, if allowed to stand can only strengthen the argument that both PDP and APC are the same, which is not correct. The question of whether PDP and APC are the same and have all failed Nigerians should therefore be proven beyond the opinion of anybody, including the responses of Mr. Ologbondiyan and Sen. Akpanudoedehe. Irrespective of whether it is PDP, APC or any other party for that matter, performances of parties when elected to manage governments must go beyond opinions.

 

Perhaps, it needs to be acknowledged that given the disposition of politicians to switch between parties, especially from PDP to APC and vice versa, is often cited as justification of semblance. In addition, there is also the question of ideology, which many have argued is absent in Nigerian politics and is another evidence of why the two parties are the same. While it is important to acknowledge the validity of these criticism, it doesn’t however confirm that both the two parties are the same and as Prof. Jega alleged have failed Nigerians. Noting that Prof. Jega granted the BBC interview as a member of the People Redemption Party (PRP), it is important that he is assisted to go beyond the seductive appeal of one-dimensional politics by checking what the evidence are with respect to the credentials of both the APC and PDP as ruling parties.

 

Recognising also that one-dimensional politics, in the context of Nigeria, encourage politicians to resent criticisms, which is why Prof. Jega can be accused of being ignorant of ‘significant milestones’, politicians, especially from leading political parties need to also be made to appreciate that their opinion does not prove any achievement or disprove failure. To dismiss people criticising both the PDP and APC highlight the problem of intolerance, which Nigerian democracy must overcome. Intolerance creates a big gap between politics and knowledge. The consequence is that many politicians will continue to develop inferiority complex, based on which they use very uncouth language in responding to criticisms. It will either be a case of ‘ignorance’ as Mr. Ologbondiyan and Sen. Akpanudoedehe, will argue, ‘nauseating, malicious and nonsensical’ as Dr. Chris Ngige will refer to criticism of his management of industrial relations in the country or Comrade Adams Oshiomhole’s reference to people critical of his leadership approaches as ‘cowards and pigs’. Once the attitude of politicians is to resent criticism, loyal party members will be intimidated and forced to submission. Nigerian politics must be reoriented such that leaders are able to respect criticism.

 

PDP and APC have failed Nigerians: Scholar Jega Vs Politician Jega

 

First thing first, is it true that both PDP and APC ‘had failed to engender good governance and development in the country’ as argued by Prof. Jega? What exactly are the evidence that made Prof. Jega to arrive at such a conclusion? So far, from the BBC interview, Prof. Jega did not present any specific validation of his conclusion. Both listening and reading the script of the interview, one is tempted to conclude that Prof. Jega spoke more as a politician in that interview than the thorough scholar he is. Being a PRP member, it was more about justifying his choice of PRP as opposed to any of the so-called big parties. In many respects, it wasn’t necessary at all. He doesn’t need to justify his political choice with reference to other parties. Doing so, cheaply bring him down to the basement of one-dimensional politics, which he is way above. As a result, at least from the BBC interview, he didn’t make any attempt to present how his party, PRP, will be different.

 

A person of the stature of Prof. Jega is entitled to his own political choice without having to justify it with reference to what is in existence. Projecting his choice confidently without having to situate it in relation to existing parties will determine substantially the value he is bring into Nigerian partisan politics. No doubt, his potentials are very high, which is why every serious-minded Nigerian should continue to advocate that people like Prof. Jega should join partisan politics. Being the successful scholar he is, in fact an authority in the field of political science in every respect, evidence-based politics should be the reference point of his political conclusions. He should be able to engage politics based on facts and not just opinion. Once he deviates from that and orient his politics based on opinions, it will be difficult, if not impossible for him to be different from the mainstream Nigerian politicians. This will simply mean that partisan politics will erode his moral authority and devalue his personality.

 

The second concern borders on how the two senior officials of the two parties – PDP and APC – contemptuously dismissed Prof. Jega’s statement. The PDP went further to question the credential of Prof. Jega as a professor of political science. This highlights one of the dangers of the Nigerian brand of one-dimensional politics. What qualifies any politician to question the academic qualification of anybody? Anybody going into politics, should be ready to be bullied by politicians who are experts in all the conventional strategies, both fair and unfair. It is debatable, if politics has entry requirement, Mr. Ologbondiyan can qualify to be anywhere near Prof. Jega. Once the disposition of politicians is to disrespect people like Prof. Jega, it will be almost impossible to expect anything more than what the PDP has achieved in Nigerian politics, which is more about opinion rather than evidence.

 

The truth is that one-dimensional politics in Nigeria, create a situation whereby no matter one’s level of education or exposure, the person must contend with the strong opinions of politicians. Going contrary to those opinions will be resisted. In the process, crude methods will be applied to rubbish the person. Recall how sadly under the immediate past leadership of the APC, a particular person was disqualified from emerging as a candidate of the party for election based on false allegation that his academic qualification was forged. Even when the Registrar of the institution made public statement confirming that the person graduated from that institution, the APC leadership went ahead to disqualify the person.

 

With one-dimensional politics, everything is reduced to opinion. With Prof. Jega now becoming a partisan politician, will he play politics based on evidence or it will just be about his opinion? Will he fail to apply all his knowledge and experience, which is his life achievement and use it to contribute towards building Nigerian political parties to practice evidence-based politics? Or will he join the conventional one-dimension politics, which is just about opinions? One will be tempted to imagine that even the choice of PRP suggest that Prof. Jega want to practice evidence-based politics largely perhaps because he is looking for a free space where internal dynamics doesn’t have the strong opinion that will be hard to break. In many respects, the choice of political party based on the strategy of avoiding strong opinions is simply a quick fix, which may not translate to any qualitative shift. That is why Prof. Jega’s BBC interview makes him vulnerable to being downgraded to the basement of one-dimensional politics.

 

This being the case, Prof. Jega, the politician risked being different from Prof. Jega the scholar. If Nigerian partisan politics is to benefit at all from Prof. Jega’s wealth of knowledge and experience, Prof. Jega the politician should be the same person as Prof. Jega the thorough scholar, theoretician, and practitioner of evidence-based politics. Being a member of PRP, his contribution towards the development of the PRP, should be evidence-based so that he is able to apply his knowledge and experience in politics. Otherwise, his ability to contribute to making PRP competitive in the politics of Nigeria is not blocked because however he approaches it, he will have to still contend with all the strong opinions that dominate Nigerian politics when seeking to mobilise support for his party, as was the case with the BBC interview.

 

PDP’s Significant Milestone – A Confirmation of Failure

 

If evidence-based politics is the reference, the recognition that no party is perfect is important. To that extend, it should be also recognised that both PDP and APC have challenges. Part of the challenge is that leaders and members of political parties should constantly be working to build capacity and correct inadequacies. The degree to which leaders of political parties ignore problems or deny that those challenges exist, the weaker they will be in managing public trust. Once the disposition of leaders is to deny existence of challenges, one-dimensional politics oriented based on opinions, which may not be the true reflections of reality, will be the attraction. Therefore, when PDP’s Mr. Ologbondiyan referred to ‘significant milestones’ recorded during the sixteen years tenure of the PDP, it is more about his opinion, which for opportunistic reasons of gaining electoral advantage could be acceptable to other PDP leaders and members.

 

The evidence so far from PDP’s record of sixteen years in government is largely about litany of corruption and how problems of insecurity become widespread in the country. With respect to the problem of corruption, series of reports of investigation are there, which is not about anybody’s opinion. For instance, recall the House of Representatives investigation on petroleum subsidy in 2012. Under the Chairmanship of Hon. Faruk Lawan, the Committee reported that “contrary to official figure of subsidy payment of N1.3 Trillion, the Accountant-General of the Federation put forward a figure of N1.6 Trillion, the CBN N1.7 Trillion, while the Committee established subsidy payment of N2.587 Trillion as at December 2011, amounting to more than 900% over the appropriated sum of N245 Billion. This figure of N2.587 Trillion is based on the CBN figure of N844.944 billion paid to NNPC, in addition to another figure of N847.942 billion reflected as withdrawals by NNPC from the excess crude naira account, as well as the sum of N894.201 billion paid as subsidy to Marketers. The figure of N847.942 billion quoted above strongly suggests that NNPC might have been withdrawing from two sources especially when double withdrawals were also reflected both in 2009 and 2010.” The report also indicted the Accountant-General of the Federation because of payments in 2009, in equal instalments of N999 million for 128 times, totaling N127.872 billion.

 

Also recall the claims and counterclaims of missing oil revenues in October 2013 when Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, as CBN Governor alleged that $49.8 billion from the sales of crude oil between January 2012 – July 2013 was missing from NNPC accounts. Following series of audits and reconciliation meetings involving NNPC, CBN and Ministry of Finance, the former CBN Governor reported the missing amount to be $20 billion while the former Minister of Finance, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala reported $10.8 billion. On February 20, 2014, former President Goodluck Jonathan suspended Mallam Sanusi from office over allegations of financial misconduct. After the suspension of Mallam Sanusi as CBN Governor, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) confirmed that about $20 billion was missing.

 

In 2012, there was the case of Police Pension Task Force, which was investigated by the Senate Joint Committee on Public Service and Establishment and State and Local Government Administration. Some of the revelations include withdrawal of N24 billion for payment of pension that required about N3.5 billion — the Chairman of the Pension Review Task Team, Alh. Abdulrasheed Maina, informed the Senate Committee of two accounts in Lagos where police pension funds were lodged, each amounting to N21 and N24 billion. Alh. Maina reported daily withdrawals of various sums of money from these accounts ranging from N200 to N300 million. A total sum of N273.9 billion was reported by the Senate Committee to have been looted in 6 years from the police pension fund.

 

Other corruption cases under PDP (1999 – 2015) include the case of $180 million Halliburton; $1.1 billion Malabo Oil; Princess Stella Oduak N255 million Aviation Ministry bulletproof cars; N10 billion jet scam involving the Petroleum Minister (2011 – 2015), Mrs. Dizieni Alison Madueke; and House of Representatives Capital Market probe; and N360 billion service-wide scam. There was also the case of $2.1 billion arms deal involving Col. (Rtd) Sambo Dasuki, former National Security Adviser under the Jonathan’s PDP administration. The breakdown showed that N1.5 billion was paid to Alh. Bashir Yuguda, which was reportedly disbursed in respective sums to the following PDP chieftains - N600 million to PDP 2015 election campaign Contact and Mobilization chairmen (Chief Bode George, Amb. Yerima Abdullahi, Mr. Peter Odili, Alh. Attahiru Bafarawa, Chief Jim Nwobodo and Col. (Rtd) Ahmadu Ali); N300 million to BAM properties linked to Alh. Bello Haliru, former PDP National Chairman; N200 million to Alh. Bello Sarkin Yaki, former PDP Kebbi State 2015 governorship candidate; N100 million to Alh. Mahmud Shinkafi, former PDP Zamfara State Governor; and N100 million to Dalhatu Limited linked to Alh. Attahiru Bafarawa.

 

Other disbursements from the $2.1 billion arms deal were N750 million to Reliance Referral Hospital Limited for special prayers; N380 million to support re-election of PDP members of House of Representatives; N550 million to Thisday Newspaper allegedly as compensation for attacks on the newspaper’s offices in Kaduna and Abuja in 2012; N120 million to Nduka Obaigbena allegedly as compensation for copies of various newspapers seized in June 2014; N170 million for the purchase of four-bedroom duplex; N260 million paid to Chief Tony Anenih; N345 million paid to Sen. Iyorchia Ayu; and N90 million for Dasuki’s son’s house.

 

Even in terms of the internal administration of PDP, corruption was an identifiable legacy. The proof is the construction of the PDP National Secretariat for which on November 14, 2008, the then National Chairman of PDP, Chief Vincent Ogbulafor, organised a fundraising dinner in Abuja to raise N10 billion to finance the construction of a 12-storey new PDP National Secretariat, located on Muhammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja. Quoting Premium Times, Sahara Reporters of January 22, 2017, reported that the dinner, which was chaired by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, then Vice President, raised over N6 billion for the project.

 

Some of the donors include Mr. Femi Otedola who donated the highest amount of N1 billion and his late father, Chief Michael Otedola, who donated N25 million. Other big donors included Alh. Aliko Dangote who offered to supply cement worth N3 billion; the PDP National Working Committee, N1 billion; Mrs. Bola Shagaya, N25 million; Strabag Construction Company N100 million; Ogun State Government, N10 million; and an anonymous donor, N100 million. Late President Umaru Yar’Adua and his Vice President, Dr. Jonathan, contributed N527,205 and N454,735, representing 15 per cent of their basic salaries, respectively. Each of the party’s 28 State Governors at the time was reportedly levied N50 million by the party.

 

The contract for the PDP National Secretariat project was awarded to BNL Limited. The party paid an initial sum of N2 billion while BNL Limited was billed to complete construction of the National Secretariat project in 126 weeks. Sahara Reporters further reported in January 2017 that because of construction variations over the years, the project cost rose to N16 billion from the 2008 estimated N10 billion out of which the party had paid N6 billion before work stopped. At it is, the project has been abandoned.

 

Another major legacy of the PDP’s sixteen years tenure was the problem of insecurity, especially Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East. Of course, there were problems of vandalisation of oil installations and kidnapping in the South-South and parts of South-East, cases of cattle rustling in North-West and North-Central. While it needs to be acknowledged that in the cases of vandalisation of oil installations and kidnapping by Niger-Delta militants in South-South were brought under control, the case of Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East was politicised by the PDP under former President Jonathan, which accounted for the failure of the PDP administration to mobilise effective response. When for instance, the abduction of more than 200 Chibok schoolgirls happened in 2014, the position of former President Jonathan led PDP Federal Government was that it was a setup. For quite some time, former President Jonathan administration did not mobilise any response to the Chibok abduction. Up to May 2015 when APC government was inaugurated, PDP led Federal Government failed to mobilise strong military response to the problem of Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East.

 

Apart from all these records of corruption and insecurity, what were the other legacies of the PDP after sixteen years in government at Federal level? May be Mr. Ologbondiyan and other PDP leaders can provide the evidence of ‘significant milestones’, which may be different from the depressing records of corruption and insecurity. Or put differently, the evidence will confirm ‘manifest contrasts … robust fortunes of our nation under the PDP.’ PDP’s Mr. Ologbondiyan will have to go beyond claims and specifically tell Nigerians what exactly were the ‘significant milestones’ recorded by the PDP during its sixteen years reign in power between 1999 and 2015.  

 

APC’s Contrasting Scorecard

 

While awaiting Mr. Ologbondiyan and PDP leaders’ account of ‘significant milestones’, as well as Prof. Jega’s evidence that both PDP and APC have failed Nigerians, as members of APC, we should be able to engage the debate by providing supporting evidence highlighting the contrasting scorecards of APC government in the last six years. In doing so, it will be necessary to acknowledge challenges. Unlike PDP leaders, APC leaders are not in denial of the existence of challenges. Despite the challenges, however, APC Federal Government under the leadership of President Muhammadu Buhari is making efforts to move the country forward. To confirm that, unlike the PDP, APC led government is not a failure, three important achievements, in the areas of social investment, infrastructure and agriculture will be emphasised. Assessment of challenges of insecurity and how APC is handling it different will be also presented as part of the supporting evidence of APC’s contrasting scorecard.

 

Social Investment Programme: Since emerging as the governing party in 2015, APC Federal Government has been implementing National Social Investment Programme (NSIP), which is far more than what any government in the past has done. Now elevated to a ministerial status, which is the initiative of President Buhari, it is founded on four pillars of N-Power, Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), Home Grown School Feeding and Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP). With the goal of lifting 100 million Nigerians out of poverty, millions of poor Nigerians are benefiting from these initiatives. For instance, GEEP has disbursed N36.9 billion in interest-free loans of between N50,000 to N350,000 to more than 2.3 million Nigerians. Under the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme, 9.9 million primary 1 – 3 pupils in 54,952 public primary schools in 35 states have benefited. Additional 107,000 cooks have been engaged. In the case of Conditional Cash Transfer more than 3 million poor and vulnerable households have been registered on the National Social Register, out of which more than one million families are currently being paid N5,000 monthly.

 

Infrastructure: When President Muhammadu Buhari administration assumed office in 2015, the total budget for Federal Roads by the outgoing PDP government of former President Goodluck Jonathan was 18 billion Naira, which is only about 25% of the Lagos State roads budget for that year. The persistent skeletal funding translated to abandoned or slow-moving road projects across the country. APC administration’s first priorities were to increase the amount of funding available for road projects, while also ensuring the resumption of work on abandoned projects. In 2016, the roads budget went up to 260 billion Naira, for which about 200 billion Naira was released.

 

Significantly, more resources were devoted to construction of road and transport infrastructure than any other administration since 1999, and the results are roads, bridges, highways, rail lines and stations, and air and seaport upgrades. Work has since resumed on several stalled, abandoned or solution-defying road projects that were inherited, like the Loko-Oweto Bridge, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Sagamu-Benin Expressway, the Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway, Onitsha-Enugu Expressway, Kano-Maiduguri Expressway, Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Expressway, Obajana-Kabba Road, Ilorin-Jebba Road, Apapa-Oshodi-Oworonshoki Road, and several others are in progress, with some already close to completion.

 

A brand new bridge in Ikom, Cross River State, has just been completed, to replace a dilapidated steel truss bridge originally built five decades ago, as was a new border bridge linking Nigeria and Cameroon, in the spirit of regional integration. Construction work on the Second Niger Bridge, a contract awarded multiple times between 2002 and 2015, but constantly stalled for lack of funding, finally kicked off in 2018, with guaranteed funding, for the first time in the history of the project. In 2017, construction finally commenced on the Bodo-Bonny Bridges and Road (linking Bonny Island to the Rivers Mainland), a project first mooted decades ago, and awarded a number of times without success, prior to the Buhari APC led Administration. Currently, according to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, there are around 900 active road contracts, covering the construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation of more than 13,000km of Federal roads and highways across the country, out of a total of 35,000km of Federal roads in existence.

 

Agriculture: Some of the specific initiatives of the APC led government of President Buhari in the agricultural sector include National Food Security Council (NFSC), Agriculture for Food and Jobs Plan (AFJP), National Livestock Transformation Plan, The Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP), The Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI), and Creation of an Enabling Environment. Specifically, the ABP for instance, implemented by the Central Bank of Nigeria, since 2015, provided more than 300 billion Naira to more than 3.1 million smallholder farmers of 21 different commodities (including Rice, Wheat, Maize, Cotton, Cassava, Poultry, Soy Beans, Groundnut, Fish), across Nigeria, successfully cultivating over 3.8 million hectares of farmland.

 

The PFI has produced and delivered to the Nigerian market, over 30 million 50kg bags equivalent of fertilizer, at reduced prices; and resulted in the revival or construction of no fewer than 40 moribund fertilizer blending plants across the country. That Nigeria today has 44 functioning blending plants, with more on the way, is solely due to the success of the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI). The plants include the following:

 

·         In 2017, the multinational group Olam invested $150 million in an integrated animal feed mill, poultry breeding farms and hatchery in Kaduna State, as well as an integrated poultry and fish feed mill in Kwara State.

 

·         In Anambra State, the Coscharis Group began the cultivation of rice in 2016, on a 2,500 hectare farm, and soon after expanded into Milling, with the commissioning of a 40,000 MT modular Rice Mill in 2019,

 

·         In Niger State, the BUA Group is currently completing a $300million Integrated Facility comprising a Sugar Mill, Ethanol Plant, Sugar Refinery and Power Plant, and a 20,000-Hectare Farm.

 

·         In Kebbi State, GB Foods has invested 20 billion Naira in a Tomato Processing Factory supplied by what is said to be the single largest tomato farm in the country. Future phases of the investment will make it the largest processing facility for fresh tomatoes in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

·         The same GB Foods in July 2020 opened its N5.5 billion Mayonnaise production facility in Ogun State, which will be supplied with input from the company’s new farms in Kebbi State.

 

·         In Lagos, Ariel Foods FZE has recently constructed and completed the biggest Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) production facility in Africa.

 

·         In Nasarawa State, the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA) has recently completed work on the first phase of a multi-million-dollar animal feed processing facility and a backward-integrated 3000-hectare Maize and Soyabeans Farm, in a co-investment partnership with a South African Investment Group.

 

·         In 2021, the Dangote Group commissioned its $2 billion Fertilizer Plant, with an annual capacity of 3 million Metric Tonnes, the largest fertilizer plant in West Africa. In June 2021, the plant began delivering an average of 120 trucks of Urea per week to the Nigerian market, and is also set to target the export market across West Africa and beyond.

 

·         State Governments are also actively keying into the President’s Agriculture vision. In 2018, Cross River commissioned a  3 billion Naira Hybrid Rice Seedlings Factory, to supply rice seedlings to farmers and governments across the country.

 

·         Lagos State is completing the 32 Metric Tonne per hour Imota Rice Mill, which, when functional, will be one of the largest rice processing facilities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Imota Rice Mill will produce 2.4 million bags of 50kg per annum, and create an estimated 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, and will plug Lagos State firmly into the national rice value chain.

 

·         Ekiti State is reviving its Ikun Dairy Farm, in a successful partnership with Promasidor, with a production target of 10,000 Liters of milk daily.

 

·         In Ondo State, the 9 billion Naira Sunshine Chocolate Factory - a Public Private Partnership involving the State Government - was completed and commissioned in 2020, to take advantage of the State’s leading position in the cultivation of cocoa.

 

Apart from these three sectors, there are other initiatives in other sectors. The achievements cited in these three sectors is just to substantiate the point that based on records of performance in government, APC can’t be in the same category with PDP. Anybody arguing that these achievements represent failure will need to substantiate it with convincing evidence of how their impact on the lives Nigerians translate to negative outcomes.

 

Beyond Politics

 

The need to be honest, whether as politicians or intellectuals is a minimum requirement that should confer legitimacy to conclusions being presented to Nigerians. If APC led Federal Government has initiated the kind of ambitious National Social Investment Programme in the country, which no other government in the past has undertaken, including PDP governments, isn’t that a confirmation of the difference between PDP and APC? If APC led Federal Government has successfully revived Nigerian Railways, actively implementing around 900 road contracts, covering the construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation of more than 13,000km of Federal roads and highways across the country, out of a total of 35,000km of Federal roads in existence, how many kilometers of road contracts were constructed, reconstructed or rehabilitated throughout PDP’s sixteen years rule?

 

What was the specific agricultural initiatives of all the PDP led Federal Governments between 1999 and 2015? In the context of these three achievements, and in other areas, the APC led Federal Government was able to succeed where other administrations, including the PDP have failed. Take the case of the 327km Itakpe-Warri Standard Gauge Rail, completed by the President Buhari led APC administration 33 years after construction began. There was the evidential case of the second Niger Bridge, originally conceived decades ago, which is now more than 50 percent completed, and scheduled for commissioning in 2022. There was the case of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, which has defied every PDP administration since 1999.

 

There is the case of the new Petroleum Industry Act assented to by President Buhari on Monday, August 16, 2021, which is going to restructure the operations and management of the Nigerian oil and gas industry. The initiative to put in place a new legal framework for the oil and gas sector started under the PDP government of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, more than two decades ago. It was shrouded in endless national debates and stalemate but was eventually passed by the two Chambers of the National Assembly under APC leadership with a six-month transition for the emergence of new institutional framework for the operations of oil and gas industry in the country.

 

If with all these, it means that PDP and APC are the same and have all failed, then failure must be defined in a way that invalidates APC’s achievements since taking over the reigns of Federal Government in 2015. However, recognising that the issues of insecurity inherited by the APC led government of President Buhari remained a major national challenge, it is important that assessment of performance of APC government is not reduced to opinions of individual politicians. The reality is that both President Buhari and all APC leaders acknowledged the enormity of the challenges of insecurity in the country, which is why Maj. Gen. (Rtd) Babagana Monguno, National Security Adviser was reported after the meeting of National Security Council of August 19, 2021, to have declared that President Buhari ‘would not leave office a failure.’ This is in recognition of the fact notwithstanding all the achievements of the APC administration, once the problem of insecurity persists, it means the government has failed.

 

Noting also that APC administration is taking steps to equip the security agencies and build morale, promote community-led solutions, develop new security infrastructure and operations across land and maritime environments, and address the underlying drivers of insecurity (poverty and youth unemployment), encouraging reports are emerging from the various theatres of operation. Although serious challenges still exist, and there is still a long way to go in restoring a robust sense of security in the country, it is also very important to continually acknowledge the victories and successes being recorded by the military and law enforcement agencies, in the various theatres of operation across the country.

 

For instance, the tide has turned against Boko Haram and ISWAP in the North-East and is turning against the bandits and criminals in the North-West. In the South East, relative calm has returned, and efforts are ongoing to fully neutralise the militant networks that have been troubling the region. In the Coastal Areas, the full rollout of the Deep Blue and Falcon Eye surveillance and security projects is certain to deal a strong blow on the activities of pirates and militants in the weeks and months ahead.

 

Certainly, all these measures can be strengthened, and the government can do more especially in relation to getting our security agencies to be more accountable. Everything considered, the current security structure in the country needs to be radically reformed. Issues of amending the laws to enable state governments establish state police

are clearly unavoidable. However, there are conditions that must be met before any decision to establish state police can serve as a good response to Nigeria’s security challenges. This include the requirement that processes of regulating the operations of the state police should be centralised as part of the functions of the Federal Police. Under that, for instance, issues of recruitment, qualification, background checks for those to be recruited, enforcement of disciplinary requirement, arms procurement and training for weapon handling, etc. should be handled at Federal level so that there are uniform standards across the country. It should be like the case of universities with National University Commission (NUC) serving as the regulatory body enforcing standards across all Nigerian universities.

 

Outside regulations, there are issues of funding. Most time, Nigerians make proposals in terms of how government should address challenges with the assumption that funding is given, which means that government can always mobilise the resources. This is mostly exaggerated. To address Nigerian security challenges, especially if the establishment of state police is to be considered, there must be a new funding arrangement, which should insulate the operations of Nigeria Police including the new state police to be established from all the uncertainties surrounding public financial management.

 

Conclusion – Facts Should Define the Boundaries of Politics

If the narrative is that PDP and APC have failed, what is the evidence based on the performances of both the PDP during its sixteen years tenure between 1999 and 2015, on the one hand, and that of the APC since 2015, on the other? If the disposition of politicians is one-dimensional politics, which is limited to opinions, why should scholars endorse opinions without evaluating them based on what the facts are? Could it be that the field of politics is truly different from the intellectual environment? May be that is so. However, it will be important to recognise that ability of individuals to contribute to changing Nigerian politics will depend a lot on the extent to which facts are recognised and respected. Whether political conclusions are oriented based on unsubstantiated opinions or facts, depend a lot on the degree to which evidence rather than opinion is the reference. Once conclusions are about opinions, propensity to ignore facts and become intolerant will be high.

 

The contours of the difference between the PDP and APC should be defined by the records of their experiences managing governments. The commitment to move Nigerian politics forward should be constructed based honest recognition of the realities, which the facts of performances of political parties when entrusted to manage governments represents.

[Salihu Lukman]

Narrow Politics and Questions of Democratic Development

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

The American journalist and historian, Anne Applebaum, in the book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, stressed that ‘The jangling, dissonant sound of modern politics; the anger on cable television and the evening news; the fast pace of social media; the headlines that clash with one another when we scroll through them; the dullness, by contrast, of the bureaucracy and the courts; all of this has unnerved that part of the population that prefers unity and homogeneity. Democracy itself has always been loud and raucous, but when its rules are followed, it eventually creates consensus. The modern debate does not. Instead, it inspires in some people the desire to forcibly silence the rest.’

 

There is no better description of contemporary Nigerian political reality. The avalanche of objectionable news with commentaries that basically conclude everything is bad in the country, is the order of the day. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is condemned and rejected. Both social and conventional media – electronic, print, local, national, and international news about Nigeria are dominated by horrible newsflashes of activities of insurgents, bandits, ethnic and religious mercenaries in the country. It is either report of kidnap, abduction, and killing of innocent Nigerians, or some depressing reports of attacks on security agencies and institutions by bandits and insurgents, or damaging commentaries of so-called failure of political leaders, parties and governments, especially, President Muhammadu Buhari and the governing All Progressives Congress (APC), or court judgements that further exposes the challenges facing Nigerian democracy, or some angry public statements by groups, so-called analysts, experts and political leaders against political establishments in the country, and so on and so forth.

 

The list is almost endless. For instance, in August 2021, reported incidences of killings in Plateau State, bandit attacks of Nigeria Defence Academy (NDA), continued activities of bandits in Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna and Niger States, Boko Haram – ISWAP clashes and many other criminal activities across the country have dominated national discourses. No doubt these are challenges, which require decisive responses from government. The occurrence and recurrence of these incidences, resulting in loss of lives and property are frightening, which has generated all manner headlines. Politics, which is supposed to provide options to citizens in terms of how to tackle these challenges, unfortunately, there is hardly any options, especially in terms of opposition to APC and its government.

 

Instead, some unsubstantiated and meaningless allegations dominate political debates in the country, without any specific proposal on how to resolve our national challenges. May be anger has taken the best out of people opposed to the APC and its government to the extent that presentations are reduced to amplifying challenges to demonstrate failure of APC and President Buhari. Wild goose campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ as Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue would insist or allegations that government, including the presidency are the sponsors of Boko Haram and bandits as Commodore (Rtd) Kunle Olawunmi would want Nigerians to believe are part of major highlight of the campaign by political opposition in the country.

 

Sensationally, both Governor Ortom and Commodore Olawunmi argued that they have evidence to prove their allegations. Coincidentally, not too long, sometime in September 2020, Dr. Obadiah Mailafia, former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria similarly alleged that a serving Northern Governor is the sponsor of Boko Haram. Although while making the allegations, he also claimed to have proof, after interrogation by the security, Dr. Mailafia was reported to backtracked, saying that he ‘did not really mean to say that the government was part and parcel of the killings.’ Since Commodore Olawumni has already began meeting with the security, hopefully the details of his evidence will come out. On the part of Governor Ortom, he claimed that he has forwarded his evidence to President Buhari and security agencies in the country. But since he feels so strong as to go public with his allegation without waiting for both President Buhari and security agencies to handle the matter, he can as well make the evidence public since he has lost confidence on established processes of managing matters of national security.

 

Part of the challenge with Nigerian politics is that accountability is almost zero. People could say whatever they want and get away with it. This has entrenched the phenomena whereby the main strategy of so-called opposition to APC is to ‘forcibly silence’ everyone into believing that President Buhari and APC governments have failed. Even leaders such as Governor Ortom whose constitutional powers to mobilise responses towards resolving challenges, no matter how small, as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution as amended, has become a leading campaigner against what he considers ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda. As far as Governor Ortom is concerned anybody arguing differently must be a supporter of ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda in the country, which according to him is the continuation of the early 19^th Century Fulani Jihad of Usman Danfodio.

 

It was the American linguist and philosopher, Noam Chomsky, in his recent book, The Precipice who lamented about how ‘the “political landscape” is indeed ominous. While today’s political and social circumstances are much less dire, still they do call to mind Antonio Gramsci’s warning …about the severe crisis …which “consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born [and] in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”’ When a retired public servant of the status of Dr. Mailafia and a retired military officer, Commodore Olawunmi can go on air on national television to allege that people in government, including a serving Governor are the sponsors insurgency and banditry in the country and the issues are reduced to media debates, it highlights how low we have descended as a nation. Such weighty allegations should be matters of judicial investigation and once proved, all identified culprits should face the full wrath of the law.

 

It is more worrisome when a serving Governor could attempt to substantiate allegations of complicity against political leaders, especially President Buhari with argument about ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda in the country. What does ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ of Nigeria mean? Although it is possible to convert people from other religions to Islam, could anyone who is not a Fulani be conscripted to become Fulani? Maybe it means that every Nigerian will be forced to have a Fulani tribal mark. What will be such a mark? In addition, Fulfude may become the lingua franca of Nigeria.

 

With respect to so-called ‘islamisation’, is it possible to force everybody in Nigeria to convert to islam? Maybe ‘islamisation’ means that shari’a law will be imposed on the country. Will that be possible. Often those who campaign based on narrow agenda have short memory. As recent as 2000, when Zamfara State under Ahmed Sani Yerima, made a questionable political declaration adopting shari’a law, thereby triggering a campaign in many parts of the North to make similar declaration for shari’a law. How many states in the North succeeded in making such a shari’a declaration? In Kaduna State, it was resisted, which led to a big crisis that consume many lives. If it wasn’t successful in Kaduna, how can it succeed in Nigeria? Even as tales by moonlight, how conceivable could Governor Ortom’s alleged ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda be?

 

If a primary school pupil talks like the way all the diehard opposition campaigners in the country campaigning against so-called ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda, one can excuse it because at that level of innocence, everything could appear possible. But for a public servant as highly placed as that of a Governor, retire public servant, retire security personnel, etc. it portends a big danger, which if overlooked can produce a cult mentality in the country with all the ethnic and religious hatred associated with it. Being Governor, retired public servants, retired military personnel, with all the knowledge and experiences they have but decided to adopt the imaginary notion that a country as diverse as Nigeria can be taken over by any ethnic or religious group, is the highest manifestation of morbid symptom of attempt to block any possibility that a new society can be born out of the dying culture of corruption, greed and lawlessness, which was the hallmark of PDP’s sixteen year tenure.

 

The debate about whether PDP and APC are the same and why some mischievously argue that they have both failed was substantially treated in the presentation Nigerian Politics and Fallacy of PDP – APC Semblance. Those who wish to block initiatives to produce a new Nigeria can continue to dismiss the rebuilding work of APC government under President Buhari. However, to accuse APC and President Buhari of promoting ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ will be taking politics beneath the realm of logical reasoning. Ideally, knowledgeable and experienced people, especially public servants should not suffer from any problem that can exhibit ‘morbid symptoms.’ But, sadly, as a nation, we are having knowledgeable and experienced people with manifestations of ‘morbid symptoms.’

 

The fact that a serving Governor is one of those exhibiting manifestations of ‘morbid symptoms’ calls for urgent review of leadership recruitment processes in the country. This should not be a partisan matter. All the parties in the country should take this very seriously. As part of that reality, the case of wild goose allegations of ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda, should be a challenge, which the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) should take over and make it an important priority. There is no reason why for instance Governor Ortom should not disclose the full details of the APC and President Buhari’s ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda. The proof should be a major campaign advantage for the PDP. Inability of the PDP to take over the campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ may simply confirm the lack of evidence. To achieve that makes it obligatory for the PDP to call Governor Ortom to order by demanding for all the proof at his disposal. The consequences of allowing Governor Ortom to continue with a so-called campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ without proof will confirm that the campaign is nothing but to promote ethnic and religious hatred in the country, which is dangerous.

 

Already, it is arguably very clear that Governor Ortom’s passion for the so-called campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ is not about developing the country or even Bunue State. Without going into the politics of Benue State, which the citizens of that state are very competent to handle, Governor Ortom’s campaign mode is based on ultra-right-wing politics, which is neo-fascist and neo-Nazist. Being neo-fascist, in our context, the politics is anchored on ethnic supremacy, which is the source of Governor Ortom’s so-called campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ agenda. As far as Governor Ortom is concerned, fulanis are the source of all his problems, by extension, the problem of Benue State and that of Nigeria as a whole. The bigger danger is that having identified the so-called problem, he is beginning to develop an ideology of hatred around it, which sadly is winning all manner of converts.

 

The only reason why such a campaign is attractive today is because President Buhari who is a Fulani man is in power. If President Buhari, a Fulani man and a Muslim being in power confirms the existence of ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation, does that suggest that when his tenure ends in May 2023, less than two years away, he will succeed in imposing another Fulani, Muslim to take over from him? Could it be part of President Buhari’s strategy to impose a Fulani Muslim, that many PDP leaders are already campaigning that a PDP Presidential candidate for 2023 should come from the North? We can choose to dismiss or take for granted all the warning signs about the appearance of ultra-right-wing leadership in the country. Once the issue of leadership recruitment in the country maintained a blind eye to this reality, the potential of producing people with such ideological mindset in leadership position of Governors or even President is high. If United State could produce a Donald Trump as President, activities of people like Governor Ortom, Dr. Mailafia and Commodore Olawunmi will prepare the stage for ultra-right-wing elements to assume leadership positions in the country.

 

Again, if today, ultra-right wingers can conveniently moblise hatred against Fulani Muslims, it will just be a matter of time before they shift focus to other groups. Any group that can potentially block or weaken its power base, it will mobilise hatred against such a group. Given Nigerian reality, depending on who will be the major contenders in both PDP and APC, campaign against so-called ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ will mutate against both Yorubas, Igbos, Ijaws, Ishekiris, etc. Based on short-term calculations, it may choose to contract fluid partnership with the aim of blocking emerging candidates even within PDP. Therefore, as we move closer to 2023, the pangs of ethnic and religious hatred will have its strong manifestation inside PDP. Once the PDP is not able to moderate campaign of ethnic and religious hatred of so-called ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’, it will be weak in controlling how it manifest itself internally in PDP.

 

There is therefore the urgent need for political parties in Nigeria to take steps to discourage ethnic and religious campaign of hatred. The hard truth is that to be able to discourage ethnic and religious campaign of hatred in the country would require that parties put in place internal code of conducts – byelaws, beyond what is provided in their constitution. Parties, as they are today, are weak in regulating the conducts of political leaders and elected representatives. If Nigerian democracy is to develop and become the facilitator for national unity and political development in the country, regulating the conduct of political leaders and elected representatives cannot be left to chance. In the circumstance, as things are today, so-called campaign against ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ is more a danger to PDP than it is to APC.

 

In fact, it more a danger to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Sen. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Governor Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, former Governor Sule Lamido, etc. than it is a danger to President Muhammadu Buhari or any potential APC Presidential candidate from the North. It is also potentially a danger against the emergence of any possible Presidential candidate in PDP from the South-West, South-East or South-South than it is to Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Vice President Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, Governor Kayode Fayemi, former Governor Ibikunle Amosun of APC from the South-West; or former Governor Rotimi Amaechi and Comrade Adams Oshiomhole from the South-South; or former Governor Rochas Okorocha and any other contender from the South-East.

 

Narrow politics can misrepresent ultra-right-wing politics based on partisan coloration. The biggest danger of ultra-right-wing politics is more manifest in the host party. PDP leaders would need to understudy what became of the US Republican Party after President Donald Trump to appreciate the dangers of so-called ‘fulanisation’ and ‘islamisation’ campaign of promoting ethnic and religious hatred to PDP’s electoral fortune. Already, PDP is faced with enough challenges. It must not allow the seed of right-wing politics to grow within its leadership. Once that happens, its capacity to put up any strong electoral contest in the country will be eroded.

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigerian Democracy and Challenges of Nation Building

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

In the book, King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership, the Psychiatrist, Arnold M. Ludwig, observed that ‘One problem in judging the political genius of rulers is knowing what they should get credit for. The situation for rulers is a lot different than for other kinds of professionals. With creative artists, scientists, military commanders, athletes, or surgeons, you have no trouble telling who should get credit for what. Creative artists paint, sculpt, build, and compose works under their own signature. Scientists conduct experiments and publish their results. Athletes compete against others in contests. Military commanders win or lose wars. And surgeons operate on patients and take responsibility for their lives. In contrast, political rulers often rely on expert advisors to help them formulate foreign, domestic, and economic policies. They also may delegate responsibility to their cabinet members, diplomats, and staff to implement these policies or even to start programs of their own. Also, unlike other professionals, they may be credited with the long-term effects of initiatives launched by their predecessors and be blamed for events beyond their control.’

 

In the Nigerian context, like every other country, the politics of judging leaders is very attractive. Everybody, perhaps except the leader, is expert and know much better. Depending on disposition and affiliation, leaders are either condemned or celebrated. There is no middle ground. Once leaders are condemned, there is hardly anything good that can be associated with that leader. On the other hand, if the leader is celebrated, every decision and action is right and supported. This is a very elusive reality, which require caution. No leader can be a complete write-off or perfect. The inability to recognise the reality that no leader is a complete write-off or perfect further thickens the wall that separate citizens and governments. If democracy is to produce governments, which affirms the power of the people, the gap between leaders and citizens should be very small, in fact, ideally, it shouldn’t exist.

 

That is theory. Without any attempt to review theories of democracy, debate about performance of leaders are necessary realities, which needs to be engaged especially if the objective is to influence decisions made by leaders. Often, the issue of influencing the decisions of leaders is lost because the act of passing judgement on leaders is dominated by election mindset that narrow interest to whether leaders should remain in office or not. It is hardly about influencing decisions made by leaders. An important pillar of democracy is rule of law based on which tenure of leaders are clearly provided in the constitution of every democratic nation. But such provisions in the constitution will not resolve the challenge of ensuring that leaders meet the expectations of citizens, however defined. Ability of leaders to meet citizens’ expectation is an important requirement for nationhood.

 

Successful nations should have common purpose and strong national bond especially when created out of multiple ethnic and religious identities. Visionary and purposeful leadership are expected to facilitate the emergence of nations, leveraging on strong national institutions, good governance, equity and justice, which enable each group to fulfill its aspirations. After all, a nation is an imagined community of people who share a common aspiration, which is realisable through the principles of justice and the rule of law as enunciated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

 

The major problem leadership in Nigeria, at all levels, borders on skewed inclination to question of nation building. How can we manage our diversity and build confidence of citizens across every part of the country to have a sense of national belonging? Admittedly, this is one area, which all leaders in the country seems to have common approach largely because all leaders approach the matter very defensively. Everybody cries of marginalisation, unfairness and injustice, but only in relation to group interests, predominantly ethnic. Hardly, one finds any leader who is raising issues of marginalisation, unfairness and injustice not based on protecting the interests of groups they belong. Consequently, every problem of the country become interpreted based on such narrow group interests.

 

If the Nigerian nation is to be developed, there must be leaders who are broadminded enough to campaign for justice, equity and fairness beyond narrow group interests. Therefore, a major challenge of nation building in Nigeria revolves around how to produce truly national leaders. Is Nigerian democracy oriented to produce national leaders? It was the British Actress, Barbara Kellerman, in the book, Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happen, Why It Matters, who made the point that ‘political theorists have been more interested in the question of how to control proclivities of bad leaders than in the question of how to promote the virtues of good ones. Influenced by religious tradition that focused on good and evil, and often personally scarred by war and disorder, the best political thinkers have had rather a jaundiced view of human nature.’

 

Most debates or proposals about what to do to build the Nigerian nation is about what to do to control (proclivity) of leaders and hardly about promoting what they should do (good virtues). From all the public debates in Nigeria, leaders are already condemned, which weakened capacity of citizens to influence decisions they take. The conclusion therefore is that leaders are already bad. This is the reality. A nation cannot be built with negative attitude. Sadly, the preponderance of negative attitude further polarised the country. Even when problems of insecurity in the country reached the frightening reality whereby every part of the country is threatened, with grave danger to lives and property, public debate is reduced to passing negative judgements about actions or inactions of political leaders especially President Muhammadu Buhari and governing All Progressives Congress (APC), both real and imagined.

 

No doubt, both President Buhari and APC must be held accountable. But when issues of accountability are reduced to interpreting challenges to mean evidence of failure, it can only re-enforce the conclusion that leaders are bad, which may make it attractive for the campaign to remove leaders out of office. Most times, the debate about changing leaders is influenced largely by the frustration of getting leaders to meet expectations of citizens, often imaginatively constructed with hardly much clarity. So long as the determining factor in judging leaders is driven by the frustration that leaders are not meeting citizens’ expectations, prejudiced conclusions against leaders will be the case. What is it that need to be done to ensure that leaders meet citizens’ expectations?

 

The gap between the theory and practice of democracy will always be determined by the extent to which democratic leaders meet the expectations of citizens. Part of the indicators of weak citizens capacity to influence decisions of leaders should include the issue of whether the debate about failure of leaders is oriented to produce options in terms of policy choices. Once debates about failure of leaders are not substantively about policy choices, it highlights manifest weaknesses of democracy. The fact that Nigerian democracy is not able to overcome the manifest weaknesses of inability to debate policy choices, is responsible for why, for instance, candidates for elections at all levels continue to campaign for the offices they contested even after results are declared, and notwithstanding that they may have lost the election. Immediately results are declared, electoral contest moved to courts and the media. Victorious candidates and their parties and INEC, at best become respondents. And defeated candidates and their parties become the appellants. In the circumstance, the judiciary is then made to pass judgements almost coloured in partisan robes.

 

As things are, Nigerian democracy is imperiled to the extent that even the routine issue of day-to-day management of political parties in Nigeria has moved to the courts. Conflicting court orders are flying all over the place given by court judges. This has made the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, while addressing the third quarterly meeting with political parties, on Monday, September 6, 2021, to exclaimed that the situation of conflicting court orders ‘is compounded by cases on the leadership of political parties, thereby making the exercise of our (INEC) regulatory responsibilities difficult. It appears that in a number of electoral cases in Nigeria today, the settled law is now unsettled and the time-honoured principles of ‘Stare decisis’ does not seem to matter any longer.’ In other words, what Prof. Yakubu was drawing attention to is the apparent looming danger of judicial anarchy in the country with respect to management of political cases.

 

This is not a matter that should be taken lightly. The positive development is that the leadership of the judiciary in the country are already alert to this danger given that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad has given queries to many of the judges in the country involved in giving these conflicting orders. However, beyond these conflicting orders, the need to sanitise Nigerian judiciary should be broadened to cover issues of ensuring that judges with underlying political interests don’t preside over political cases in which their interest’s conflict with their judicial responsibility. Once judges with underlying political interests are allowed to preside over cases in which their interests is already in disagreement with their judicial responsibility, their decisions can be predictable. Just review must of Supreme Court Judgements on electoral matters since 2019, for instance, including minority judgements. There are judges whose political leanings can be confirmed by merely looking at the judgements. The need to insulate Nigerian judiciary from unethical influences of partisan commitment of individual judges is an important requirement for both the development of democracy and nation building.

 

The challenge of nation building in Nigeria must be broadened beyond just the simplistic approach of merely passing negative judgements on political leaders in the country. It is important that citizens recognise the need to prioritise initiatives to influence the decisions of leaders at all levels. For instance, regarding the challenge of insecurity, what actions do Nigerians want the APC led government of President Muhammadu Buhari to do? Is the security challenge facing the country persisting because the government is failing to initiate the required actions? The encouraging thing about both President Buhari and APC leaders is that they are not in denial about the security challenge facing the country. This wasn’t the case under PDP especially when the problem of Boko Haram came up around 2010.

 

It is public knowledge that former President Goodluck Jonathan and many PDP leaders, at the time, alleged that Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East was sponsored by opposition politicians. Recall that when the Chibok abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls happened in 2014, the position of former President Jonathan led Federal Government was that it was a setup, based on which PDP led Federal Government refused to mobilise the needed security responses for the rescue of the abducted Chibok schoolgirls. Also recall some of the recent wild goose allegations made by Commodore (Rtd) Kunle Olawunmi and Dr. Obadiah Mailafia to the effect that some people in government, including a Northern Governor are the sponsors of Boko Haram and banditry. These were the dominant narratives officially adopted by the PDP led Federal Government of former President Jonathan.

 

With all the lamentation about alleged inability of the APC led government of President Buhari to mobilise response to end the security challenge in the country, around the second week of August 2021, the narrative is beginning to change. In line with the instructions of President Buhari, the security agencies are speaking the language best understood by the bandits and insurgents. All arms of the security agencies are fully mobilised and are working in a coordinated way to crush the bandits in Zamfara, Katsina and Kaduna forests. Interestingly however, there are Nigerian leaders who have dismissed the military campaign going on to crush the bandits. So-called media commentators, religious and other leaders have discredited decisions of government to shut down communication services, markets, etc. in the states where the military operations are taking place. A religious leader has already proclaimed that the military operations against the bandits will fail.

 

What a jaundiced view. May be Nigeria should return to the era when hundreds of millions meant for arms procurement to fight insurgency, banditry and other criminality will be diverted and given to religious leaders for prayers. Instead of mobilising security agencies to fight the criminals, resources being deployed to fight insecurity in the country should be given to religious leaders to pray for the bandits to come back to their senses. This is perhaps what Sheikh Ahmad Gumi is preaching when he insists that government should grant amnesty to bandits in the North just the way the administration of late President Umaru Yar’Adua handled Niger Delta militants. Anybody who argue this way is already part of Nigeria’s national security problem. Nigerians need to rise to the challenge of regulating the conduct of so-called leaders, including religious clerics. Being jaundiced makes most of these leaders to be antagonistic to initiatives towards nation building.

 

Beyond religious clerics, there are other category of leaders in the country with similarly jaundiced views. Individuals, who in their own rights count as elders and have paid their dues to this country have become very vocal almost virtually against every decision and action of government. Ideally, elders should speak with strong moral voice based on capacity to say more than the ordinary on account of their lived experiences. But when elders speak with the same voice as that of politicians, it weakens their authority and diminish their influence in society. If the weakness of politicians is that they are unable to project a national identity, how different could elders whose mission only seek to entrench divisive politics in the country? The hallmark of being elders should be to bring something completely different from what the political class are offering. In which case, instead of claiming to be speaking as elders, so-called elders who promote Nigeria’s fractured reality should just honestly disclose all their political objectives.

 

However one looks at it, there is no way a nation can be built with leaders and elders whose views are antithetical to national development. Nigerians cannot be facing the challenge of insecurity and some leaders are working to undermine the efforts of government to crush the criminal elements responsible for all the pains citizens are going through, including loss of lives of citizens. Anytime leaders dismiss actions of government against bandits and insurgents, they embolden these criminals to continue with their nefarious activities. Yes, Nigerians may be angry with government and our political leaders. On no account should anyone take advantage of the anger of Nigerians to furtively support criminal activities. There must be some defined boundaries to these debates, if at all the Nigerian nation is to have a common purpose and a strong national bond.

 

The good thing is that there are some inspiring exceptions that gives hope that notwithstanding all our challenges, there is a good prospect for a Nigerian nation. One of such exception was demonstrated by Mr. Allen Onyema, the CEO of Air Peace, who on Monday, September 6, 2021 addressed Super Eagles player onboard Air Peace to Cape Verde for their World Cup Qualifying match. Mr. Onyema told the players that ‘you are not just going to play a football match, you’re going to carry on your young shoulders the aspiration and the hope of a nation almost in distress.’ He appealed to them to do everything they can to win the match for the country. He pledged an award of N20 million once they win the match. Mr. Onyema’s inspiring words of encouragement to those young Nigerian players, among many other positive factors, must have contributed to the 2-1 victory of the Super Eagles against Cape Verde on Tuesday, September 7, 2021.

 

It is quite therapeutic hearing those words from Mr. Onyema. We need more leaders in this country like Mr. Onyema. In particular, we need more leaders like Mr. Onyema in politics. If Nigerian democracy is to develop the capacity to drive processes of nation building, our political parties must develop capacity to recruit leaders like Mr. Onyema. There are many leaders in Nigeria in the mold of Mr. Onyema from every part of the country. The big barrier against recruiting them into politics is that debates about expanding membership of political parties is limited to protecting the personal ambitions of political leaders. Largely because political debate is almost all about ambitions of political leaders, nationalists of the mode of Mr. Onyema may just be limited to being financiers and sponsors of candidates for elections, and in return get rewarded with contracts, etc.

 

It was the US Republican Party member and former Congressman, Edward Royce, in the book, Classical Social Theory and Modern Society, while recalling Emile Durkheim’s teachings of political sociology, who argued that ‘One reason democracy is the dominant political system in the modern world, …is that it fulfills a pressing societal need. Under the governance of pre-modern regimes, society’s affairs are carried out according to habit, tradition, and “blind routine.” But given the complexity of the modern world and the everpresent necessity to introduce changes and enact reforms, society can no longer function effectively without the heightened capacity for reflection, deliberation, and innovation that democratic government makes possible. In the simpler period of the past, “things go on happening in the same way.” But survival in the modern era depends on the state being able to make constant adjustments, respond thoughtfully to the flux of circumstances, and plan for the future with intelligence and foresight. Democracy is the government of choice in the modern world, … because of its superior capability as society’s brain.’

 

Our politics in Nigeria starts and end with who will be the candidate for election. More clearly stated is which part of the country will the candidate come from? Promoted largely by Nigerian elites who most times position themselves to emerge as the main beneficiaries of such campaign, the major focus is reduced to which region of the country produces the President. Whether such President can respond to challenges of the region he/she comes from is another matter entirely. Champions of group interests then suggest that such candidates can ‘fulfill’ our pressing needs. Questions of justice, fairness and equity are confined to rationalising group interest even when for instance upholding the group interest means higher levels of injustice against other groups (blind routine). Nigerian democracy needs to evolve new political negotiating frameworks to guarantee that electoral contests facilitate constant adjustments to respond to the state of instability Nigeria finds itself.

 

While it is true that ethnic politics will always be part of our national life, it is important that Nigerians are able to engage these issues based on the recognition for a superior commitment to building the Nigerian nation. The underlying issue is to ensure that beyond condemning or celebrating leaders, Nigerians should come up with specific governance and political reform proposals aimed at facilitating regional developments as part of leadership negotiations. A situation whereby regions or ethnic groups produce Presidents and at the end of their tenure nothing in terms of physical development of the region to justify the emergence of President of Nigeria from such region is simply unacceptable. For instance, what was the benefit to the South-West throughout the eight-year of former President Obasanjo? Or what was the benefit to the South-South to justify the six-year tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan?

 

May be the current anger against President Buhari is because development initiatives of APC government is skewed in favour of the North. If that is the case, then most of the 900 active road contracts, covering the construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation of more than 13,000km of Federal roads and highways across the country most have favoured the North. Specifically, Loko-Oweto Bridge, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Sagamu-Benin Expressway, the Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway, Onitsha-Enugu Expressway, Kano-Maiduguri Expressway, Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Expressway, Obajana-Kabba Road, Ilorin-Jebba Road, Apapa-Oshodi-Oworonshoki Road, Bodo-Bonny Road in Rivers State, Keffi-Akwanga-Lafia-Makurdi Road, and several others should evidentially confirmed preference for the North.

 

Additional confirmation should include the 156km Lagos-Ibadan Standard Gauge Rail, the first double-track Standard Gauge Rail project in West Africa (and the first Standard Gauge Rail project in Nigeria to be started and completed by the same administration). Also recall that the 327km Itakpe-Warri Standard Gauge Rail was completed by the Buhari administration 33 years after construction began. The 168km Abuja-Kaduna Rail project, and the 42.5km Abuja Light Rail project, both inherited from previous administrations, were completed in 2016 and 2018 respectively. The second Niger Bridge, originally conceived decades ago, is now more than 50 percent completed, and scheduled for commissioning in 2022.

 

The narrow focus on individual candidates and where they come from has so far created a situation whereby political parties are nothing more than platforms for contesting elections. Specific commitments of parties to issues of nation building are taken for granted. Consequently, the true substance or content of politicians and how they will handle the task of building Nigerian nation when elected, which will determine policy choices may only be speculated based on estimation of past experiences of candidates. The truth, however, is that the dynamic of public life is completely different and no matter the level of experiences, factors that would influence decisions of political leaders when in office are far more complex than what their past suggest.

 

Part of the assumptions that democracy is founded on the logic that political parties should have manifestos, which should highlight ideological orientations and commitments of leaders and members, is just redundant in our context. Any close observer will recognise that although there is a document called party manifesto, party members, including leaders are hardly committed, in fact, many are hardly conversant with provisions of their party’s manifesto. To a large extent, this account for why initiating policies and programmes based on provisions of the party’s manifesto is weak. How many party members, including leaders have gone through the party manifesto? How many party leaders can develop perspectives, which will highlight policy choices in lines with provisions of the party’s manifesto?

 

The consequence is that the only political contest that take place is personality contest. To go beyond personality contests means that debate on perspectives should highlight possible choices open to governments. To what extent are political parties able to project the demands of Nigerians especially in terms of regional representations? Beyond the personality of candidates and their ethnic or regional backgrounds, what are the other demands of Nigerians from the other six regions? How can any candidate from any of the regions reconcile all these demands and make Nigeria home to all ethnic groups in the country?

 

If Nigeria is to emerge as a nation with common purpose and strong national bond, Nigerian politics must be developed such that political parties prioritise interest negotiations beyond the narrow electoral contest focusing on regional and ethnic representations. Specific regional demands for developments should be integral parts of any demand for regional or ethnic representation in the leadership of the country. Clear policy choices reflected in commitments of political parties based on provisions in their manifestos should be the driving factors for leadership negotiations. Opposition to leadership should not be simply about opposing ethnic and religious identity. Once politics is oriented around ethnic and religious identity, it will undermine capacity of leaders to mobilise Nigerians to have common purpose and strong national bond.

 

It is necessary Nigerians recognise that political parties are the most important democratic bodies to facilitate processes of nation building. All political parties should be able to have clear positions in terms of how they intend to mobilse Nigerians to have common purpose and strong national bond. Specific details of how that can guarantee justice, equity and fairness should be clarified beyond the personalities of prospective political leaders. Frameworks should be developed within political parties to ensure that elected representatives are committed to implement positions adopted by political parties. Eventually, Nigerian democracy should graduate from situation whereby electoral contests is all about personalities, to the level that policy choices are integral parts of electoral contest.

 

Accordingly, if the narrative is that APC has failed, what is the alternative being offered by the opposition, including PDP? As part of the introspection required to strengthen the capacity of our parties, our leaders, and governments, we need to engage the debate based on assessment of what we must do to rebuild the confidence of Nigerians and regained their trust. In doing that, we need to restrategise and more effectively present the objective scorecards of governments at all levels since 2015 in ways that can truly demonstrate to Nigerians what has been achieved, and why despite what has been achieved we are having the challenges facing us as a nation. Nigerians need to rise above cheap campaigns of ethnic politics, which is now being used to promote hatred in the country.

 

Any leader or elder – politician, religious, traditional, irrespective of gender, age, and social class, who is promoting politics of ethnicity or campaigning against initiatives of government to fight criminality, especially in cases where activities of criminals are destroying lives and properties of innocent citizens, such a leader or elder is also a security risk. As part of Nigeria’s common purpose, strong national bond to eliminate criminal activities of bandits and insurgents is irreducible minimum. The act of judging leaders, however well intentioned, must not serve as a cover to protect criminality. On the other hand, leaders who inspire national hope should be celebrated in the country and political parties must take steps to recruit those leaders into politics. The only guarantee that Nigerian democracy can facilitate nation building is when political leaders are able to graduate from being champions of small group interests to being torchbearers of our common purpose and strong national bond.

 

Similarly, our common purpose as a nation must enthrone high ethical conducts, especially in our judicial institutions. The integrity of judges must be revered such that Nigerian justice system is insulated from partisan meddling, which then undermine fairness in granting orders by Nigerian courts with respect to political cases. Once Nigerian judiciary is compromised, rule of law will be undermined, which can only further widen the gap between political leaders and government, on the one hand, and citizens, on the other. If political leaders and governments are disconnected from citizens, potentials for common purpose and strong national bond will be weak.

[Salihu Lukman]

Retrogressive Politics of Value Added Tax in Nigeria

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

The controversy around whether Value Added Tax (VAT) should be centrally collected by the federal government or decentralised so that state governments are the ones to collect, beyond anything, is a test about the type of democracy Nigerians want. Is it going to prioritise the development of the nation’s productive capacity? Or will it simply be about consuming the resources that are currently available? Once the priority is about consuming currently available resources, commitment of political leaders to mobilise investment to develop the nation’s productive sectors will be weak. This is not to dismiss issues of access to existing resources by those who produce them. However, access may not necessarily translate into commitment to utilise the resources in ways that strengthened commitment of political leaders to invest in the development of Nigeria’s productive sector. The important challenge therefore is to ensure that access to resources also come with increased commitment by political leaders towards developing Nigeria’s productive sector.

 

With this background, it is important that Nigerians are also reminded that since 1999, public debate about increased access to resources by state governments, otherwise known as resource control, was limited to revenue from petroleum. Largely, promoted by the oil producing states, mainly the South-South geopolitical zone of the country, the debate was about allowing those states to control all the revenue from oil and perhaps pay a percentage as royalty to federal government. The royalty will be expected to support both the federal government and other non-oil producing states in the country. In all the debates around resource control, tax revenue was never recognised as a significant factor worthy of consideration. Partly, on account of both combination of weak institutional capacity and corruption in the public sector, the belief was that the most important source of government revenue for Nigeria is petroleum.

 

That Nigerians are debating whether it is states or federal government that should collect VAT signify some progress, which has to do with the fact that there is an increase in what is being generated from VAT. For instance, in 2015, the total amount collected was N759.43 billion. Between 2016 to 2020, there was consistently increase in the amount collected respectively to N777.51 billion, N972.35 billion, N1.11 trillion, N1.17 trillion and N1.531 trillion. Everything considered, under the APC led federal government of President Muhammadu Buhari, VAT collection increased from N759.43 billion in 2015 to N1.531 trillion in 2020, an increase of more than hundred percent.

 

Nigerians can conveniently dismiss the role of APC led federal government in making it possible for the remarkable improvement in VAT collection in the country such that today, it has become an attractive variable in the struggle for resource control by state governments. The reality however is that credit must go to the APC led federal government of President Buhari. Whether it would have been possible if PDP is still in control of the federal government can only be wishful thoughts. If that were to be the case, why wasn’t it the case at any point between 1999 and 2015? No matter what anyone want to say, the reality is that the significant increase in VAT in the country between 2015 and 2020 confirmed improved efficiency and reduced corruption in the process of collection and management of Nigeria’s public finances.

 

Interestingly, in terms of the politics of the debate, improved efficiency and management of Nigeria’s public finances are not the focus of the debate. In some ways, even those who are supposed to recognise this fact and promote the achievements of the APC and its federal government, instead have become so defensive, may be because the public noise in the country is all about demonstrating how the APC led federal government of President Buhari is the driver of inequality, injustice and unfair practices against state governments. Sponsored by Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers States, the argument is that monies belonging to state governments are collected by the federal government and shared to states. According to Governor Wike, State money is taken by ‘Abuja people’, based on which he expressed ‘surprise at the level of injustice in the country’, arguing that ‘Rivers State generated about N15 billion as VAT in June 2021 but received only N4.7 billion, Lagos State generated over N46 billion as VAT in June, but got just over N9 billion, whereas Kano State generated N2.8 billion and also got N2.8 billion as allocation.’

 

Governor Wike can audaciously and shamelessly talk about VAT today because, its value has significantly increased which made it attractive for a rich state like Rivers to be interested in controlling it. If Governor Wike has any morality, he should look back and acknowledge how small Rivers must have received as its VAT share before 2015. Being a leading member of PDP, what was responsible for the low VAT records in the country between 1999 and 2015? And since, according to him and almost every leader of PDP, Nigerians are looking up to the PDP to rescue the nation from ‘bad governance’ in the hands of APC, does PDP’s brand of good governance come with low capacity to manage the nation’s public finances?

 

As members of APC, it is important that Governor Wike is reminded that the current increased record of VAT collection in the country is made possible only because the PDP is no longer in power. If PDP were to be in power the fact of inefficiency and corruption in the process of collection and management of VAT would have continued and the amount collected would have remained relatively low. It is not by accident that VAT collection in the country significantly increased under APC led federal government. This is because one of the specific commitment of APC since 2015 as outlined in the section of the party’s manifesto Funding a New Nigeria was that ‘APC government will set about the urgent task of getting Nigeria’s public finances in order, by tackling the massive waste, duplication and corruption in the system, diversifying the economy and expanding our tax base to increase non-oil revenues, and reprioritising public spending away from bureaucracy towards investment in infrastructure and improved frontline services.’

 

Both in terms of ‘getting Nigeria’s public finances in order’ and ‘investment in infrastructure’, APC led Federal Government is implementing provisions of the APC manifesto to the letter. Nigerian’s especially PDP leaders can conveniently dismiss all the work being done to develop Nigeria’s dilapidated and abandoned infrastructure, but the question of ‘expanding our tax base to increase non-oil revenue’ cannot be disputed. One strong evidence of that is the debate about states collecting VAT. It is very easy to play very cheap politics with these issues, partially because also, as a party, APC is not taking ownership of its achievements. Instead, its achievements are now being interpreted to justify some rebellious politics against the APC led federal government.

 

Somehow, the VAT debate in Nigeria reminisce the warning by Amartya Sen in the book, The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity, when he cautioned that ‘One of the penalties of the increased focus on religious and communal identities, which has recently gone hand in hand with the deliberate fostering of sectarian politics …, is a weakening of the pursuit of egalitarian commitments, which requires a more integrated focus on the interests and freedoms of deprived groups taken together (related to economic, social and gender-based stratifications). While political organisations that unite all the lower castes can – and often do – help the underdogs in general, that end is not served by the divisive politics of rivalry between different lower-caste groups …, or by religious sectarianism …. The newly erected communal boundary lines are not only divisive in themselves, they also add to the social and political difficulties in removing the old barriers of hardened inequality.”

 

So far, the VAT debate is more about perceived injustice on account of Nigeria’s divisive politics of ethnicity. Substantive issues of desirability or otherwise of VAT, including all the administrative challenges bordering on implications of methods of collection and why it is a crucially determining factor for any democracy is ignored. Part of the challenge of debating policy issues in Nigeria is that public noise, largely influenced by subjective anger of citizens become the guiding consideration. The subjective anger of citizens is mainly about the blind politics of dismissing whatever is associated with Federal Government as biasedly in favour of a section of the country, however it is defined. With or without justification, many Nigerians who dominate the media space accuse the Federal Government of injustice. In several respects, ethnicised campaigns is further entrenching divisive politics, thereby increasing social and political inequality. As things are, Nigerian politics is blind to ‘egalitarian commitments’ of promoting national integration.

 

With respect to the specific issue of VAT, if the federal government can record increase of more than hundred percent between 2015 and 2020, is the current figure representative of the total expected collection from VAT? Simple reading of all the federal government revenue projections as contained in every year’s budget estimate will indicate a wide gap in expectation. Although there is remarkable increase in collection, it should be recognised that a lot more can be done to generate more revenue from VAT. Can transferring collection to state governments achieve that? May be and maybe not. But beyond the question of what is collected and what states get, what is even the economic implications VAT?

 

Generally, debate around tax is about how governments can use it to influence economic development. As fiscal policy tool, it is basically about controlling amount of money individuals should have for consumption. Will government tax policy seek to support low-income groups, i.e., ensure that the higher income groups pay more tax? Or will government tax policy disfavour the lower income group. The first test of whether any government can make any claim to being progressive will be reflected in the orientation of its tax policy. A progressive government will generally be associated with progressive tax policy, which means it will seek to tax the rich more. A conservative government will tax the rich less. Beyond who is taxed more, taxing the poor less is proven economically to be a strong incentive to increase demands for goods and services. If government want to ensure increased production of goods and services in the country, increasing the amount of money available to low-income groups is an attraction. Therefore, in addition to progressive tax policy being in favour of low-income group, given that low-income group are in the majority, any government that want to be popular with citizens would lean towards progressive tax policy. 

 

Given that VAT is basically a sales tax, which is regressive because both the rich and the poor pay the same rates, and to that extent therefore makes it disadvantageous in terms of using it as a fiscal policy instrument to stimulate demand, ideally the politics of debating it should distinguish conservative and progressive politicians. Somehow, the public noise in Nigeria has pulled our dear Lagos State government into teaming up with Rivers in the legal battle to ensure that states win the right of collecting VAT and not federal government. Something must have just gone wrong for Lagos State to disregard its longstanding historical commitment to progressive governance and embrace what in the long run will be a disadvantage to majority of Lagosians.

 

Mr. Simon Kolawole, publisher of the Cable online newspaper has excellently demonstrated why in the long run VAT collection by states governments may be disadvantageous to both Rivers and Lagos States. According to Mr. Kolawole, in ‘2020, Nigeria earned N1.531tr from VAT. While local VAT was N763bn, foreign VAT — collected by FG — was N768bn. Therefore, rather than take just 15% (N230bn) from the N1.531trn, FG may now pocket the entire N768bn from foreign VAT since it does not go into federation account and may not be subject to the regular sharing formula. That would deprive the states, Rivers and Lagos inclusive, of about half of the total VAT revenue. This is HUGE. The FCT may also win as it generated N202bn in VAT last year but got only N34.6bn as its share.’

 

The desire to access more resource is perhaps the main driving factor in the battle to get state governments to collect VAT in the country. Wouldn’t it be possible to work with federal government and manage all the challenges, including ensuring that businesses are not necessarily encumbered by having to deal with multiple points of collection? There is no need to go into the details about how decentralised collection can impact on prices of products and services. Also, no need to go into the potential conflicts that would emerge between branch offices of companies and state governments in the country. All these are issues that would be instigated because VAT collected at the point of sales by a branch of company is expected to be remitted to the host state government where the head office is located. If state governments want to control what is generated in their states therefore, the administrative framework of how it is remitted to government and which government will be a major issue.

 

Nigerian democracy and politics must functionally rise above sentiment. Instead of debating how to consume the little resources so far available, Nigerian political leaders should be debating how to increase available resources. Even within the limit of the debate about increased available resources, the question of what governments need to do, policy measures required, including issues of tax, its administration and orientation in terms of whether it should favour the low or high-income groups should not be issues that would be blindly considered. In the same way Rivers and Lagos imagined that they would have more revenue if they were allowed to collect VAT and therefore control everything, they collected without sharing with the federal government and other states, states like Osun, Ekiti, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Abia, would lose. On the other hand, Oyo, Ogun, Kano, Kaduna and Enugu, may be the surprise actual gainers.

 

Overall, APC leaders, must take advantage of the current VAT debate to take ownership of its achievements, which the fact of improved VAT collections in the country represent. In doing, APC leaders must go beyond the narrow debate about access to what is currently available. If at all APC leaders and members are to make any claim to progressive political credentials, generating large scale financial resources at both federal and state levels, which should be deployed to expand the productive base of the nation’s economy, should be the aspiration. There is no reason why any state in the country, including Zamfara, Yobe, Osun, Ekiti, Abia, Ebonye, should not aspire to generate at least N10 – 15 billion monthly as Internally Generated Revenue. To be caught in the backward debate about whether they should have the little they currently receive from the federation account is retrogressive. As a nation, our politics and democracy must be refocused towards nurturing the productive potentials of every state.

 

Commitment to develop capacity to mobilise large scale financial resources to develop productive potentials of all Nigerian states should be the minimum requirement for all APC leaders. Already, since the time of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as Governor of Lagos State between 1999 and 2007, Lagos State has emerged to be the leader in mobilising large scale financial resources in the country, which is why it is the only state with about one trillion Naira annual budget. Justifiably, Lagos was able to undertake large scale public investment commensurate with its resource base. It’s not by accident therefore, it is the leader in the country with a model transport infrastructure. If the Lagos vision is limited to sharing available resources, it wouldn’t have been the leader it is.

 

The VAT debate in the country also poses a significant challenge to political parties in terms of developing capacity to coordinate policy debate within the structures of parties as well as ensuring that policies of governments produced by the party reflects any emerging consensus. Somehow, the current VAT debate in the country is completely removed from the structures of the main political parties – PDP and APC. If the debate is to take place within the structures of PDP, for instance, even the sectarian outburst of Governor Wike will be moderated. On the other hand, if the debate is to take place in any of the organs of APC, the question of the role of APC federal government in achieving improved collections will be well emphasised. In addition, the potential to mobilise more revenue from VAT and the expected role of state governments cannot be avoided.

 

The need to develop Nigerian democracy so that political parties in the country can initiate pro-people and pro-poor public policies, and not cheap sentiments that can be disadvantageous to citizens, especially the poor, is an urgent imperative. Important as the debate around increased access to resources by state governments, so long as political leaders are not commitment to initiatives that can develop the productive capacity of the country, amount of revenue generated will remain low. The other issue is that all APC leaders must be appealed to jealously guard the achievements of APC and all its governments. Why should APC leaders allow a situation whereby any PDP leader, including Governor Wike, can make claims of any injustice on a matter that demonstrated in practical terms the failure of PDP? If VAT is important source of revenue for government, why did PDP failed to record any significant collection throughout their sixteen years as a ruling party?

 

Every opportunity to remind Nigerians about the failure of PDP should be amplified. Similarly, all evidence of success of APC and its governments should be affirmed. APC leaders must take ownership of all the achievements of APC governments at all levels. On no account should APC leaders allow opportunistic rebellious politics of PDP and its leaders to distract them from the task of providing the needed progressive leadership to develop the nation’s productive potentials. As a nation, the question of fighting poverty and reduced inequality both among citizens and across all the 36 states of the country should be the egalitarian commitment of all progressive political leaders in the country. If Nigerians are to be united, it must be based on equitable productive resource endowment across every part of the country!

[Salihu Lukman]

APC’s High-Profile Membership Recruitment and Issues for 2023

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

Mr. Femi Fani-Kayode’s Red-Carpet Reception

 

Late on Thursday, September 16, 2021, reports emerged that Mr. Femi Fani-Kayode had joined the All Progressives Congress (APC) and he was received by President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, in the company of His Excellency, Mai Mala Buni, Chairman of the APC Caretaker and Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee and the Governor of Zamfara State, His Excellency, Bello Matawalle. With the emergence of the report, public attention in the country has been dominated by negative commentaries, mostly from APC members, about why Mr. Fani-Kayode should have been accorded such a high-profile reception. One of the first people to express disappointment was Sen. Babafemi Ojudu, Special Adviser to President on Political Matters, who lamented that the reception given to Mr. Fani-Kayode makes the day ‘the saddest day of his political career.’ Mr. Joe Igbokwe, Special Adviser to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu on Drainage and Water Resources and former APC Chairman of Lagos State cried that ‘Fani-Kayode is coming to destroy APC’ and expressed ‘sadness that he (Fani-Kayode) who was not coming to add value to the party was given a red-carpet treatment while his (Igbokwe’s) efforts go unappreciated.’

 

The issue of Mr. Fani-Kayode joining the APC, first emerged on Monday, February 8, 2021, when his pictures together with HE Mai Mala Buni, Chairman of the APC Caretaker Committee and Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State appeared in many social media platforms. Many believed that the emergence of the pictures signaled that negotiation is going on, if not concluded, to bring Mr. Fani-Kayode into the APC. This made many party members to protest that leaders of the party are about to admit Mr. Fani-Kayode into the APC. Partly, on account of the protest, Mr. Fani-Kayode himself denied that he is joining the APC and boasted that he will never do so. The protest against Mr. Fani-Kayode joining the APC has to do with his venomous nature. He abuses, insults, and disparages everybody, almost indiscriminately. As a result, his capacity to build and sustain relationships is short, not just politically, but it also the case almost in every aspect of his life.

 

Almost every member of APC is angry that our leaders have brought someone like Mr. Fani-Kayode into our party. This is made worse by the red-carpet reception given to him, which he doesn’t deserve. But since it has happened, there is no need to cry over spilled milk. What is very clear is that our leaders, especially President Buhari have forgiven Mr. Fani-Kayode and embrace him as one of us. As members of APC, our anger with Mr. Fani-Kayode is that he has abused both the APC, President Buhari and virtually every leader of the party. For instance, he claimed that the ‘emergence of Buhari in 2015 annihilated Nigeria and plunged her into darkness, death and destruction. He came to steal, kill and destroy and for the last disastrous 5 years that is all he has done.’ More than this, he has said unprintable things against the APC and all its leaders.

 

At this point therefore, if with all these, our leaders can accept Mr. Fani-Kayode into the party, APC members should not be more Catholic than the Pope. Why should APC members be sad that our leaders are magnanimous? Perhaps, because of the red-carpet reception, which many committed APC members cannot even dream of, it should be legitimate to feel unappreciated like Mr. Igbokwe had cried out. But as APC members, especially those that have been in the party since its formation in 2013 and have endured all the challenges of being loyal members, we must always be reminded that our commitment is to contribute in whatever way and manner possible to change Nigeria for the better. If therefore, someone like Mr. Fani-Kayode, who is considered unreliable and therefore not qualified to be a member, would seek for forgiveness from our leaders, based on which they extended their arms to him, members of the APC should also show understanding.

 

No doubt, since 2015, there are many opportunistic political leaders in the country who joined our party, got all the welcome reception, like the one given to Mr. Fani-Kayode, but end up betraying and in some instances outrightly undermining our party and our leaders. Understandably therefore, part of the frustration of many APC members is that most times, it could be predicted that our leaders are wrongly investing trust and confidence on wrong people. Contrastingly, those who are consistent and loyal to our party and our leaders hardly gained the deserving respect they should have. This may not necessarily be intended but it is there. Be that as it may, members need to move forward with every confidence and commitment to engage our leaders. If we are to succeed in changing Nigeria, both APC leaders and members must commit themselves to developing strong and functional relationship. Ability to develop strong and functional relationship between APC leaders and members is the foundational requirement for APC leaders to be able to develop strong and functional relationship with Nigerians. This will require that APC members are able to respectfully tell leaders the truth.

 

Functional relationship with Nigerians is always very crucial for winning elections. Since our leaders have developed the needed large heart to forgive Mr. Fani-Kayode, as loyal party members, we should be able to take advantage of their large hearts and make some demands, which, if met, can make our party better and more attractive to credible Nigerians beyond Mr. Fani-Kayode. The proviso however is that even if our leaders ignore our demands, as loyal and committed party members, we should take a rain cheque and continue to respect decisions of party leaders and make every sacrifice for our democracy and our dear country. One day, our leaders will have no option but to concede to members’ demands. Who knows, some of the members making demands may even become leaders tomorrow. In which case, what will be their excuse not to respond to those demands, which they themselves made on leaders.

 

To that extent therefore party members should respect the decision of our leaders to admit Mr. Fani-Kayode and welcome him with a red-carpet reception. On no account, should we be distracted. If Mr. Fani-Kayode need red-carpet reception to be a member of APC, millions of party member have demonstrated that they need any form of recognition to work for Nigeria. Being very consistent and stable members of the APC, we should also recognise that the party is partly what it is today on account of our little contributions over the years. At the same time, all our leaders, without any exception, are also where they are today partly because of our small support, loyalty and committed to execute task given to us. Having recognised all these, although we would have loved a situation whereby our leaders carry party members along in every decision they take, the difference between many party members who today feel unrecognised and people like Mr. Fani-Kayode is that even when not carried alone, they will respect decisions of party leaders and execute tasks that can make both the party and leaders succeed.

 

Specifically with respect to accepting Mr. Fani-Kayode as a member of APC, therefore, party members expect that our leaders accepted him to join the APC so that he can be supported to reform himself. That being the case, party members should hope that our leaders, including President Buhari, also accepted to forgive Mr. Fani-Kayode because he has undertaken to commit himself to the process of getting reformed. With all the reservations party members may have about the commitment of Mr. Fani-Kayode to reform himself, we should trust our leaders and through them, also trust that Mr. Fani-Kayode will truly want to reform himself. His (Mr. Fani-Kayode’s) statement to the effect that ‘let’s focus on unity, peace and togetherness’ is an encouraging testament. For Mr. Fani-Kayode to talk of the unity of Nigeria at this time, shortly after he supported and promoted secessionist campaigns of Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho is a remarkable departure. However, recognising such a departure shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that we should blindly trust Mr. Fani-Kayode.

 

What is required in the circumstance is that our leaders must test the commitment of Mr. Fani-Kayode to reform himself. The first test is that Mr. Fani-Kayode should be reminded that politics is local. Coming from Osun State, his commitment to reform himself should start with getting him to integrate himself with APC leaders back in Osun State. At this early stage of his membership of APC, beyond the photo show with our dear President Buhari and the Chairman of the APC Caretaker Committee, Mr. Fani-Kayode should have a photo gallery with images of him uniting with Chief Bisi Akande, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Governor Gboyega Oyetola and other party leaders in his home state, Osun. In fact, part of this test would have been met had Governor Oyetola and Ogbeni Aregbesola, at the minimum, been part of the welcome reception at the Presidential Villa on Thursday, September 16. Had that happened, the raging controversy following the admission of Mr. Fani-Kayode into the party would have been minimised.

 

The photo gallery should also cover images with leaders from the South-West. Mr. Fani-Kayode should take every step to reciprocate the gesture of our leaders by demonstrating that he is ready to reform himself. Some of the controversy he has already created makes it doubtful whether he want to reform himself at all. For instance, when he claimed that he facilitated the defection of some Governors that joined the APC from PDP, suggests that he is still his old venomous self. Only people with very small minds could make such statement and only gullible people can believe them. The claim that three additional Governors – Bauchi, Oyo and Enugu – are on their way to join the APC, also falls in the same category of small mind talking to gullible people. If Mr. Fani-Kayode truly want the party to succeed in recruiting anybody, including Governors, he should quietly support the leadership. We have a very competent leadership that can handle that responsibility, which is why his admission into the party succeeded in the first place.

 

Accountability and High-Profile Membership Recruitment

 

A major challenge of high-profile political party membership recruitment, like that of Mr. Fani-Kayode, is the issue of getting those recruited to be accountable. How can the party ensure that newly recruited high-profile members moderate themselves such that it is the party that control them and not the other way round? While it is easy to control people that are already constraint by legal provisions on account of statutory responsibilities such as Governors and legislators, individuals like Mr. Fani-Kayode, who are only responsible to themselves, would be difficult to manage. It is therefore important that APC members prepare to engage Mr. Fani-Kayode to ensure that he is accountable to our leaders, our party organs and by extension, Nigerians. A reformed Mr. Fani-Kayode should be an accountable personality, both to the party and to Nigerians. On no account should Mr. Fani-Kayode ever imagine that he has come to APC to conduct himself uncontrollably. He must be accountable to our leadership and all our party structures. He must respect himself and abide by the provisions of the party constitution and its manifesto. To support him, copies of the APC constitution and manifesto must be made available to him immediately.

 

There are also issues related to getting him to work with other party members especially in relation to addressing national challenges. The problem of managing Nigeria’s diversity, for instance, require respect and tolerance. That he (Mr. Fani-Kayode) has joined APC and has made statements to the effect that he is committed to a united Nigeria must be demonstrated based on respect for all Nigerians irrespective of differences. A major test will be the extent to which Mr. Fani-Kayode is able to demonstrate tolerance and respect for opinions of leaders and members of the party. This doesn’t mean he shouldn’t disagree. But he must express his disagreement with utmost respect. On no account must he promote divisive campaigns, in whatever forms or manner. Doing so will suggest that he is still the old venomous Mr. Fani-Kayode. Once that become the case, party members must be ready to engage him including campaigns to discipline him as provided in the constitution of the APC. Therefore, his membership of the party must take root in his Ward in Osun State, and he must subordinate himself to his Ward leadership.

 

The Case of Former President Jonathan Goodluck

 

Part of the reason why high-profile membership recruitments by political parties in Nigeria attract a lot of debate, attention, and controversy, is that it hardly come without any ambition to contest election by those joining the party. Although in the case of Mr. Fani-Kayode, no one can associate it with the ambition to contest election, which is why many questioned his electoral value, with 2023 elections less than two years away, and with the APC leadership efficiently succeeding to win so many high-profile leaders joining the party, there has been lots of speculation in terms of what all the high-profile membership recruitment into APC represent. Partly because President Buhari will be completing his 2^nd term and therefore ineligible to contest, the question of who will emerge as the Presidential candidate of the APC for 2023 is quite open.

 

Two of the Governors that recently joined the APC from the PDP are speculated to have done so because of ambition for 2023. And since the 2019 Bayelsa State Governorship election, when APC leaders met former President Goodluck Jonathan to lobby support for APC candidate, Mr. David Lyon, there have speculations that he (former President Jonathan) will also be joining the APC. Some have even alleged that as part of the negotiation, former President Jonathan has already been offered the APC Presidential ticket for 2023. Amid the controversy around Mr. Fani-Kayode, the Secretary of the APC Caretaker Committee, Sen. Akpan Udoedehe, is reported to have confirmed that anyone who join the party will be free to contest. However, it is important that the issue of high-profile membership recruitment by APC are clarified beyond the narrow expectations of electoral contest. Why should the objective of recruiting high-profile members be reduced to the issue of contesting election? Assuming someone like former President Jonathan agree to join the APC and he fail to emerge as the President Candidate of the party for 2023 election, what will happen to him?

 

As Nigerians, we must begin to take steps to protect our leaders. As APC members, we have campaigned against former President Jonathan in 2015. As President, former President Jonathan made every effort to block the emergence of APC in 2013. But those should not be the reference point. The reference point should be the historic decision of former President Jonathan to concede defeat in 2015 even before the final votes were counted. With that, former President Jonathan ranked himself as one of those who fought and defended Nigeria’s democracy. On no account therefore, any political party should be allowed to push former President Jonathan to diminish his stature, either as an aspirant or a candidate for any office. Doing so will mean that we want him to gamble away all his legendary achievements.

 

It is sad enough that PDP leaders, being who they are, don’t recognise and respect former President Jonathan’s deservedly political stature. No doubt, every speculation about the possibility of former President Jonathan joining the APC has to do with the reality of being unappreciated by PDP leadership. Negotiating to bring him into APC should not be based on aspiring for any office. It must be recognised that former President Jonathan, and indeed every former President, is beyond holding any office in the land. Bringing former Presidents to that level will amount to diminishing their political stature. Already, President Buhari is doing excellently well by delegating some high-profile diplomatic responsibilities to former President Jonathan. One of the failures of PDP is the inability to create responsibilities that can match the statures of former Presidents. Inability to create responsibilities for former Presidents is perhaps what accounts for the overbearing restlessness of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

 

With President Buhari scheduled to end his tenure in 2023, less than two years away, negotiation to recruit former President Jonathan into APC must be used to settle the question of the roles of former Presidents within the APC. APC must not allow the situation to emerge whereby party leaders and members only respect elected and appointed functionaries. Part of the lessons from the challenges created under the last National Working Committee led by Comrade Adams Oshiomhole had to do with the absence of Board of Trustees. Is it possible therefore to organise the APC Board of Trustees’ and get former Presidents to provide the needed moral leadership that can serve as a check to both party leaders and elected functionaries of the party?

 

The question of providing needed moral leadership to check party leadership and elected functionaries can be debated. But its desirability can hardly be contested. Part of the need for checks also has to do with the issue of implementing campaign promises and provisions of party manifesto. Having former Presidents discharging persuasive moral responsibilities as leaders of Board of Trustees would strengthen the capacity of party leaders and members to influence decisions of elected functionaries. Just emerging two former serving Presidents of the standings of President Buhari and former President Jonathan working in harmony towards a common political goal. It will take a rascally elected functionary at whatever level to ignore their recommendations. On the other hand, the big risk is when they are unable to work in harmony. That will tear the party apart and may potentially destroy the party. There is the need therefore to broaden consultations and agree on everything required to ensure that the framework of operations of the APC Board of Trustees guarantees that former serving Presidents can work in harmony.

 

Transforming Partisan Politics Beyond Electoral Contests

 

Negotiating to recruit high-profile members must go beyond the narrow speculation for electoral contest. Getting high-profile party members to be accountable to structures of the party should be developed beyond lip service. Weak accountability is responsibility for why some elected leaders become overbearing and refuse to respect decisions of the party. At the same time, weak accountability is also responsible for why leaders of the party, for instance the National Working Committee fails to convene meetings of organs of the party. Beyond failure to convene meetings, relationship between the party and elected representatives, both executive and legislative arms at all levels is similarly weak. Capacity to direct or influence decisions of elected and appointed functionaries of governments produced by the party is just notional. There is the need to take every step necessary to strengthen the relationship between the party structures and elected and appointed functionaries in both the executive and legislative arms at all levels.

 

The other important issue is managing internal negotiations to agree on substantive details that can guide the process of decisions of what the party needs to do to win elections in 2023. A major issue in this respect is the question of what will guide the emergence of APC Presidential Candidate for 2023 elections. As party members, we must appeal to our leaders to quietly negotiate this sensitive matter within the structures of APC. It is worrisome when some of leaders of our party partner with some PDP leaders to start public advocacy for power shift. Once APC leaders form partnership with PDP leaders to force a decision on a matter that a competent organ of the party is expected to decide, will suggest loss of confidence. Besides, what will be the morality of partnership with leaders of PDP who are decidedly in opposition against our party?

 

Negotiating a number of these issues will require tolerance and strong commitment by our leaders. It must be acknowledged that it is not going to be an easy negotiation. Part of the challenge also is the distraction from all the pressure from Nigerians. Leaders must be leaders by being able to withstand all the public pressure. Of course, most of the public pressure is also emanating out of some of our contemporary challenges as a nation. This include problems of insecurity on account of banditry and insurgency, which sadly is further widening all the fault lines of the country. Therefore, in addition to the question of who the Presidential Candidate of APC will be and from which part of the country he/she will come from, specific issues that can unite Nigerians must be identified by our leaders and make them issues for the 2023 campaigns.

 

APC leaders have demonstrated that nothing is impossible in Nigeria politics. With commitment and skilful negotiations, every desirable proposal can be achieved. That was the motivation for the successful merger of 2013. It was the driving factor for the successful defeat of PDP in 2015. It was similarly the reason why APC is coming out of a major leadership crisis successfully as a united party. APC leaders need to remain confident, committed and go into negotiation on all the issues around 2023. The same attitude that guided all the success of the party since 2013 can guide our party to victory in 2023!

[Salihu Lukman]

Nigeria’s Debt and Struggle for New Nigeria

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

In a letter to Nigerian Senate, read to the plenary session of Tuesday, September 14, 2021, President Muhammadu Buhari requested approval for external borrowing plan to finance deficit in 2021 Federal Government budget ‘through sovereign loans from the World Bank, French Development Agency, EXIM Bank and IFAD in the total sum of $4,054,476,863 and €710 million and grant components of $125 million.’ Since the request of President Buhari for the new loans, there have been so much debate about the rising debt profile of Nigeria based on the fear that it is not sustainable. Mainly informed by moral consideration of accumulating debts, which will be inherited by future generation of Nigerians, there have been media debates almost suggesting that APC government of President Buhari is impulsively taking foreign loans. Are loans taken by the APC led government of President Buhari unsustainable? Relative to other PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015, to what extent can it be argued that the current APC led government of President Buhari is reckless in its decisions to obtain more loans?

 

During the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s (1999 – 2007), external debt was reduced to $2.11 billion at the end of 2007. However, the domestic component increased from N798 billion to N2.17 trillion within the same period. According to the Debt Management Office (DMO), the breakdown of Nigeria’s debt stock shows that $20.5 billion (about 73%) was owed to Paris Club. By 2004, the external debt stock had risen to $35.94 billion. The negotiation eventually paid off in 2005 when Paris Club granted relief of $18 billion. By the end of 2006, the Obasanjo administration had cleared off the Paris Club’s debt. However, the country still owed $2.11 billion external debt and domestic debt was or N2.17 trillion.

 

Under late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua (2007 – 2011), Nigeria’s external debt increased from $2.11 billion to $3.5 billion and domestic debt rose to N5.62 trillion. Similarly, between 2010 – 2015, during the tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria’s foreign debt rose to $7.3 billion and domestic debt was N7.9 trillion. By June 2021, under President Buhari’s administration, Nigeria’s external debt has risen to $28.57 billion and domestic debt was N16.02 trillion. This means that both with respect to external and domestic debt, under President Buhari, Nigeria borrowed more. Although it is legitimate to worry about Nigeria’s rising external debt portfolio, it may be helpful to go beyond the moral debate of implications to future generations. Arguments about non sustainability based on morality will not highlight many of the core economic realities influencing government’s decision to borrow.

 

Debate about debt sustainability is estimated with reference to debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio. GDP being the monetary value of goods and services produced in the country within a given year. It was the American political economists at Duke University, North Carolina, Richard Salsman, in the book The Political Economy of Public Debt – Three Centuries of Theory and Evidence, who drew attention to the fact that assessment of public debt of nations ‘differ in taxable capacities, …, the willingness of their citizens actually to pay taxes (by choosing to work, or spend, more or less), and rate of compliance. Suppose a nation called “Reckless” has a public leverage (public debt/GDP) of 100 that’s twice that of another (at 50 percent) named “Prudence.” Which nation’s debt is less sustainable? Suppose each year Reckless routinely extracts half of national income in tax revenues while Prudence extracts only a tenth. The public debt of Reckless is more sustainable, all else equal, despite its higher leverage, because its debt is only twice its annual tax revenues, while the debt of Prudent is quintuple its tax revenues. Reckless doesn’t look so reckless, while Prudence is far less prudent than a surface view suggests. The public debt/GDP metric is better than none but the public debt/revenue ratio better measures fiscal sustainability.’

 

So far, the debate about Nigeria’s debt is based on the absolute value of the amount Nigeria owe. Variables of both GDP and revenue are ignored in the debate. Without any doubt, some of the concerns expressed in the debate are legitimate, especially in relation to problems of exchange rate, which has further increased Nigeria’s debt burden. But in terms of looking at other critical variables such as revenue profile and even performance of the economy, the debate is excessively politicisation. This is partly responsible for why some even suggest that compared to all previous PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015, the performance of the APC led administration of President Buhari is reckless. How correct is this assertion? In terms of both debt/GDP and debt/revenue ratios, what is the reality?

 

Computed at current basic prices, under former President Obasanjo, between 1999 and 2007, Nigeria’s GDP increased from N5,426.47 billion to N34,318.67. By 2010, under late President Yar’Adua, Nigeria’s GDP increased to N62,989.40 billion. In 2015, under former President Goodluck Jonathan, increased to N94,144.96 billion. At the end of 2020, under the current administration of President Buhari, Nigeria’s GDP has increased to N152,324.07. Just looking at both the debt profiles of respective governments since 1999 as well as GDP values, debt/GDP ratio has decreased from about 22% in 1999 to about 12% at the end of former President Jonathan’s administration. By the end of 2020, under President Buhari, debt to GDP ratio has gone up to around 21%, but still less than the 22% in 1999.

 

Low debt to GDP ratio indicates that the economy produces and sells goods sufficient to pay back the debt. Therefore, based on Nigeria’s debt to GDP figures, arguments of previous PDP administration performing better than the current Buhari administration may appear attractive. The point however should be emphasised that although some literature suggests that debt to GDP ratio of below 60% is sustainable, the issue of assessment of performance of governments revenue in relation to debt provides a better measure of sustainability. In other words, what is the size of debt in relation to revenue, which is the point made by Richard Salsman to the effect that ‘public debt/GDP metric is better than none but the public debt/revenue ratio better measures fiscal sustainability.’

 

Nigeria’s total revenue in 1999 was N949.2 billion. In 2007, under late President Yar’Adua, it rose to N5,727.5 billion, in 2010, N7,303.7 billion, and in 2015, under former President Goodluck, N6,912.5 billion and in 2020, under President Buhari, N9,303.2 billion. This means that debt to revenue ratio was respectively 3.6%, 1.3%, 1.75% and 1.75%. This means that even with the rising debt profile of the Buhari administration, the ability of Nigeria to pay back its debts is not lower than it was under former President Jonathan. Even with the worsening exchange rate reality, which on its own has further increased the Naira value of Nigeria’s debt portfolio given that under former President Jonathan, Naira was exchanging for N158 to the US Dollar. Currently, in September 2021, exchange rate is N570. Note that the computation of both debt to GDP and debt to revenue ratios is based on the current exchange rate of N570.

 

Part of what is largely responsible for the lower debt to revenue ratio is the reality that under the current administration of President Buhari, Federal Government is making good progress in diversifying revenue sources. For instance, although Oil Revenue only increased from N3,830.1 billion in 2015 to N5,536.7 billion in 2019, an increase of 45%, Non-Oil Revenue increased from N3,082.4 billion to N4,725.6 billion, an increase of 53%. For the combined sixteen years of former President Obasanjo, late President Yar’Adua and former President Goodluck, between 1999 and 2015, Oil Revenue increased from N724.4 billion to N3,830.1 billion, representing an increase of over 81%. On the other hand, Non-Oil Revenue increased from N224.8 billion in 1999 to N3,082.4 billion in 2015. Ratio of Oil Revenue to Non-Oil Revenue in 2015 was 1:1.24 in 2015. In 2019, it has decreased to 1:1.17. This implies that Non-Oil Revenue increased.

 

In terms of expenditure assessments, between 1999 and 2015, total expenditure increased from N947.7 billion to N4,988.9 billion. Recurrent expenditure in 1999 was N449.7 billion, which increased to N3,831.9 billion in 2015. Comparably, between 2015 and 2019, under President Buhari, total expenditure increased to N9,714.6 billion in 2019, from N4,988.9 billion in 2015. Recurrent expenditure increased to N6,997.2 billion in 2019, from N3,831.9 billion in 2015. On the other hand, capital expenditure between 1999 and 2015 increased to N8,18.4 billion, from N498 billion. Under President Buhari, between 2015 and 2019, capital expenditure increased to N2,289 billion. The overall implication of all these to government budget is that budget deficit between 1999 and 2015 increased to -1557.8 from -285.1. It similarly increased to -4820.6 in 2019.

 

The elementary logic is that higher budget deficits contribute to pushing governments to borrow. Applying the same logic, expectedly lower debts should encourage governments to have more favourable balanced budgets. Although following debt cancellation of more than $30 billion in 2004, under former President Obasanjo, there was reduction in budget deficit consistently, between 2003 and 2008, from -202.7, -172.6, -161.4, -100.8, -117.2 and -47.4, respectively for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, however, considering lower capital to recurrent expenditure ratio, it is quite debatable whether any favorable change was achieved. For instance, one of the expectations would have been that following the debt cancellation of 2004, government should have more revenue to put in its capital expenditure given that it has freed itself from issues of debt services and other associated costs. May be, the small increases in capital expenditure to N351.3 billion, N519.5 billion, N552.4 billion and N759.3 billion respectively for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 was enough to justify the debt cancellation. Or perhaps the correspondingly similar small increases in recurrent expenditure of the Federal Government during the same period to N1,110.8 billion, N1,321.3, N1,390.2 and N1,589.3 respectively, contribute to the aggregate impact that was achieved due to debt cancellation during the tenure of former President Obasanjo.

 

May former President Obasanjo have forgotten this very legacy of being unable to prioritise capital expenditure during his tenure, especially give the successful debt cancellation, when he recently adds his voice to those who are critising the decision of President Buhari’s administration to obtain additional debt when he argued, ‘If we are borrowing for recurrent expenditure, it is the height of folly. If we are borrowing for development that can pay for itself, that is understandable. Then the payment, how long will it take to pay itself?.’ We may have to curious ask former President Obasanjo, when Nigeria cancelled its debt in 2004, what specifically was the objective? Shouldn’t it have been for development? The resources that were freed from debt services, which component of the Federal Government budget was it used for?

 

Everything considered, all the indices of Nigeria’s fiscal management between 1999 and 2020, indicates more prudence under the six years of President Buhari than during the eight years of former President Obasanjo, notwithstanding the claims of cancelling Nigerian debts. By the time the analysis is expanded to cover specific issues of projects executed, under the current administration of President Buhari, Nigerians would need help from former President Obasanjo, former President Goodluck, all PDP leaders and their supporters to highlight what specifically they were able to give Nigerians in terms of projects executed in return for their ‘prudent’ management of the national economy during their sixteen years tenure.

 

For instance, President Buhari is implementing one of the most ambitious National Social Investment Programme (NSIP) in the country since independence. Under the programme, with the goal of lifting 100 million Nigerians out of poverty, millions of poor Nigerians are benefiting from these initiatives. One of the components of the programme, Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP), N36.9 billion in interest-free loans of between N50,000 to N350,000 has been disbursed to more than 2.3 million Nigerians. Under another component of the Programme Home-Grown School Feeding Programme, 9.9 million primary 1 – 3 pupils in 54,952 public primary schools in 35 states have benefited. Additional 107,000 cooks have been engaged. In the case of Conditional Cash Transfer, the third component, more than 3 million poor and vulnerable households have been registered on the National Social Register, out of which more than one million families are currently being paid N5,000 monthly.

 

In the area of infrastructure, APC led administration of President Buhari has increased annual budgetary allocation for Federal Roads to about N260 billion as against the allocation of 18 billion Naira in 2015 under PDP administration. Significantly, more resources were devoted to construction of road and transport infrastructure than any other administration since 1999, and the results are roads, bridges, highways, rail lines and stations, and air and seaport upgrades. Work has since resumed on several stalled, abandoned or solution-defying road projects that were inherited, like the Loko-Oweto Bridge, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Sagamu-Benin Expressway, the Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway, Onitsha-Enugu Expressway, Kano-Maiduguri Expressway, Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Expressway, Obajana-Kabba Road, Ilorin-Jebba Road, Apapa-Oshodi-Oworonshoki Road, and several others are in progress, with some already close to completion.

 

A brand-new bridge in Ikom, Cross River State, was completed, which replaced the dilapidated steel truss bridge originally built five decades ago, as was a new border bridge linking Nigeria and Cameroon, in the spirit of regional integration. Construction work on the Second Niger Bridge, a contract awarded multiple times between 2002 and 2015, under PDP administration, but constantly stalled for lack of funding, finally kicked off in 2018, with guaranteed funding, for the first time in the history of the project. In 2017, construction finally commenced on the Bodo-Bonny Bridges and Road (linking Bonny Island to the Rivers Mainland), a project first mooted decades ago, and awarded several times without success, prior to the Buhari APC led Administration. Currently, according to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, there are around 900 active road contracts, covering the construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation of more than 13,000km of Federal roads and highways across the country, out of a total of 35,000km of Federal roads in existence.

 

In the Agricultural sector, specific initiatives of the APC led government of President Buhari include National Food Security Council (NFSC), Agriculture for Food and Jobs Plan (AFJP), National Livestock Transformation Plan, The Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP), The Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI), and Creation of an Enabling Environment. Specifically, the ABP for instance, implemented by the Central Bank of Nigeria, since 2015, provided more than 300 billion Naira to more than 3.1 million smallholder farmers of 21 different commodities (including Rice, Wheat, Maize, Cotton, Cassava, Poultry, Soybeans, Groundnut, Fish), across Nigeria, successfully cultivating over 3.8 million hectares of farmland.

 

The PFI has produced and delivered to the Nigerian market, over 30 million 50kg bags equivalent of fertilizer, at reduced prices; and resulted in the revival or construction of no fewer than 40 moribund fertilizer blending plants across the country. That Nigeria today has 44 functioning blending plants, with more on the way, is solely due to the success of the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI). The plants include the following:

 

·         In 2017, the multinational group Olam invested $150 million in an integrated animal feed mill, poultry breeding farms and hatchery in Kaduna State, as well as an integrated poultry and fish feed mill in Kwara State.

 

·         In Anambra State, the Coscharis Group began the cultivation of rice in 2016, on a 2,500 hectare farm, and soon after expanded into Milling, with the commissioning of a 40,000 MT modular Rice Mill in 2019,

 

·         In Niger State, the BUA Group is currently completing a $300million Integrated Facility comprising a Sugar Mill, Ethanol Plant, Sugar Refinery and Power Plant, and a 20,000-Hectare Farm.

 

·         In Kebbi State, GB Foods has invested 20 billion Naira in a Tomato Processing Factory supplied by what is said to be the single largest tomato farm in the country. Future phases of the investment will make it the largest processing facility for fresh tomatoes in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

·         The same GB Foods in July 2020 opened its N5.5 billion Mayonnaise production facility in Ogun State, which will be supplied with input from the company’s new farms in Kebbi State.

 

·         In Lagos, Ariel Foods FZE has recently constructed and completed the biggest Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) production facility in Africa.

 

·         In Nasarawa State, the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA) has recently completed work on the first phase of a multi-million-dollar animal feed processing facility and a backward-integrated 3000-hectare Maize and Soyabeans Farm, in a co-investment partnership with a South African Investment Group.

 

·         In 2021, the Dangote Group commissioned its $2 billion Fertilizer Plant, with an annual capacity of 3 million Metric Tonnes, the largest fertilizer plant in West Africa. In June 2021, the plant began delivering an average of 120 trucks of Urea per week to the Nigerian market, and is also set to target the export market across West Africa and beyond.

 

·         State Governments are also actively keying into the President’s Agriculture vision. In 2018, Cross River commissioned a  3 billion Naira Hybrid Rice Seedlings Factory, to supply rice seedlings to farmers and governments across the country.

 

·         Lagos State is completing the 32 Metric Tonne per hour Imota Rice Mill, which, when functional, will be one of the largest rice processing facilities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Imota Rice Mill will produce 2.4 million bags of 50kg per annum, and create an estimated 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, and will plug Lagos State firmly into the national rice value chain.

 

·         Ekiti State is reviving its Ikun Dairy Farm, in a successful partnership with Promasidor, with a production target of 10,000 Liters of milk daily.

 

·         In Ondo State, the 9 billion Naira Sunshine Chocolate Factory - a Public Private Partnership involving the State Government - was completed and commissioned in 2020, to take advantage of the State’s leading position in the cultivation of cocoa.

 

Notwithstanding all these and ignoring all the years of lost opportunities under sixteen years of PDP, public debates around comparative assessments of performance of six years of APC government under President Buhari as compared to sixteen years of PDP get unfairly dominated by allegations of recklessness and incompetence. PDP may wish to go beyond the manipulative strategy to rewrite the realities of incomparable achievements of President Buhari led APC government as against all the PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015 by coming out with a clearer empirical account than can present new evidence. Otherwise, the incontrovertible evidence is that APC led government of President Buhari is in fact more prudent than all PDP governments between 1999 and 2015.

 

May be also, given the bullish disposition of Governor Nyesom Wike of River States in engaging economic policy debates in the country, it is important to stress the point that in addition to the requirement for honesty, PDP leaders should understand and appreciate that when issue of development are reduced to what the English Economist, Kate Raworth referred in the book, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21^st-Century Economist, as the portrait of a person ‘standing alone, money in hand, calculator in hand, and ego in heart’, initiatives of governments can hardly rise above consumption, which was the case throughout the sixteen years of PDP. Because that was the case, even when former President Obasanjo negotiated debt cancellation, rather than resulting increased capital expenditure significantly, that didn’t happen.

 

Interestingly Governor Wike’s response to the decision of President Buhari’s administration to negotiate the new debt of about $4 billion was that Rivers State was discriminated against. One of the problems of bullies is the mentality of believing that they can force their way by intimidating others. Governor Wike need to accept that negotiation in a 21^st century economy doesn’t require intimidation. In addition, leaders who are committed to developing their societies would have to outgrow the doughnut mentality, which reduces every policy debate to cheap sharing of so-called resources. Afterall, in any case some of the projects being executed by the administration of President Buhari such as the Bodo-Bonny Bridges and Road (linking Bonny Island to the Rivers Mainland), was decided without any pressure. Besides, how much pressure did Governor Wike had to put on the Federal Government of President Buhari to get the refund of over N70 billion for repairs on Federal Roads?

 

One of the issues that need to also be appreciated is that to some extent, the confidence of PDP leaders tends to be high in engaging debates around the performance of the economy because of the laid-back attitude of some appointees of Federal Government who should have been very proactive in directing public debates in the country. Many PDP leaders and their supporters are emboldened by the weak responses of designated public officers in Federal Government saddled with the responsibilities of engaging Nigerians around initiatives of government. The other challenge, which is very disturbing is issues around management of Nigeria’s foreign exchange by the Central Bank. A situation whereby the US Dollar would appear to be on a roller-coaster against the Naira is simply unacceptable. Had the Naira to US Dollar exchange rate been stable in the last two years, most of the alleged debates about so-called recklessness against the government of President Buhari would have been long settled.

 

Therefore, while appealing to the CBN to take every measure necessary urgently and expeditiously to stablise the Naira exchange rate, similar appeal must also be made to all functionaries of the Federal Government, especially in ministries of Finance and National Planning to provide all the intellectual leadership required to convert the false accusation that APC led government of Buhari is recklessly borrowing. Nigeria’s borrowing, both with reference to debt/GDP and debt/revenue ratio is still below the permissible economic threshold of below 60% and 46% respectively. If economic indices are the reference point in any comparative assessment of performance President Buhari led administration as compared to all the PDP administrations between 1999 and 2016, PDP leaders and their supporters cannot have any voice!

[Salihu Lukman]

APC and Struggle for New Nigeria

 

Salihu Moh. Lukman

Progressive Governors Forum

Abuja

 

On October 1, 2021, Nigeria’s sixty-first independence anniversary, President Muhammadu Buhari, in a national broadcast, acknowledged that, ‘the past eighteen months have been some of the most difficult periods in the history of Nigeria. Since the civil war, I doubt whether we have seen a period of more heightened challenges than what we have witnessed in this period.’ The country has been caught by secessionist agitations of Nnamdi Kanu’s group in the South-East and Sunday Igboho’s in the South-West. Specifically, agitation by Nnamdi Kanu’s group has graduated to rebellion against the Nigerian state, resulting in attacks on police stations and killings of security personnel and other functionaries of government as well as destructions of government structures. Compounded by ongoing Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, these secessionist agitations have threatened the unity of Nigeria.

 

With incidences of banditry in the North-West and North-Central producing more cases of kidnappings and abductions of citizens, including schoolchildren, capacity of Nigerian security agencies to prevent and arrest criminal activities of rebellious groups in all parts of the country are legitimate concerns of all Nigerians. There is also the challenge of preventing or managing conflicts arising from activities of herdsmen, which have provoked all manner of conflicts between Fulani herdsmen and other citizens, especially farmers, across every part of the country. Criminal activities associated with herdsmen also increased incidences of banditry, kidnappings and abductions of citizens.

 

The narrative around this, promoted by the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and their supporters, is that challenges of insecurity facing the country is a confirmation that President Buhari and APC have failed Nigerians. Citing campaign promises of APC in 2015, undertaking to end insecurity, fight corruption and build the economy, problems of insecurity in the country is being used to mobilise Nigerians against the APC and President Buhari. Part of the politics is also aimed at mobilising support for opposition politicians ahead of 2023 elections. Divisive politics of ethnicity and religion have been important elements of the campaigns.

 

Consequently, there appears to be some disconnect between politics and the need to unite Nigerians to work together to address the nation’s security challenges. Opposition politicians and their supporters are unreceptive to efforts to mobilise Nigerians to forge strong unity towards ending insecurity in the country. It is therefore a good mark of leadership, notwithstanding the desperate grandstanding politics for 2023 by PDP and its supporters for President Buhari to acknowledge that Nigeria is passing through period of momentous challenges. No doubt President Buhari is not in denial of Nigeria’s security challenges. Acknowledging the challenges is indicative of the commitment of President Buhari and by extension APC leaders to end the problem of insecurity facing the country.

 

Recalling that APC was officially registered as political party by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on July 31, 2013, with the slogan CHANGE, specifically, Section Three of the APC manifesto undertook ‘to institute radical reform of the Nigerian Government based on Good Governance precepts – transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, human rights, civil and political liberties. We must install a government whose leaders are responsive to the needs of Nigerian citizens and delivering effective and efficient services to citizens equitably in all the three branches of our governance realm – the executive, judiciary and the legislature. We cannot achieve these reforms without strengthening our public institutions and away from the “Strong Man” model, which has devastated our economy and institutions.’

 

Since 2015, under the leadership of President Buhari, APC controlled Federal Government has rolled out several initiatives to deliver on its campaign promises targeted at strengthening Nigeria’s public service institutions. Quite some significant progresses have been achieved. A major gap being exploited by the opposition against the APC and the Federal Government is that official communication both from the APC and the Federal Government are passive and reactive. Efforts to engage Nigerians to secure citizens’ ownership of policy initiatives is quite low. Consequently, political opposition in the country is succeeding to take good advantage of this reality to unfairly portray both the APC and President Buhari in bad light.

 

Partly because of the domineering influence of the negative publicity by opposition politicians against the APC, unfortunate activities of armed bandits, insurgents and criminal elements in the country are mischievously being presented as confirmation of failure of APC led Federal Government. False narrative against APC and President Buhari are being promoted, suggesting that criminal activities of bandits only started when APC took control of the Federal Government in 2015. In addition, APC is being alleged to have failed in ending Boko Haram insurgency.

 

Any objective analyst would recall that activities of Boko Haram insurgents as at 2015, apart from controlling most parts of the North-East, have spread to parts of North-West and North-Central, notably, Kano, Kaduna, FCT, Niger, Kogi and Nasarawa. In both the North-West and North-Central, problems of cattle rustling were rampant. Kidnapping was also there in many parts of the South-South and South-East. To worsen matters, there was the 2014 corruption case of $2.1 billion meant for arms procurement, which was diverted by PDP led administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

 

It is true that problem of cattle rustling in the North-West and North-Central has graduated to banditry and it is assuming a war situation. However, it should be also recognised that the fight against Boko Haram has made significant progress. Unlike before 2015 when most parts of the North-East was under the control of insurgents, this is no longer the case. No doubt both in the case of fighting banditry and Boko Haram, there are challenges, which the APC led government of President Buhari is responding to.

 

Any comparative assessment of APC and PDP management of Nigeria’s security challenges, which failed to recognise these realities is only being dishonest. Dishonest mindset is responsible for why all initiatives of APC Federal Government are being dismissed based on false narrative. Nigerians must pose the question, if APC and President Buhari have failed, as is being claimed, what is the political opposition specifically proposing as solutions to the problems of insecurity? Or, if as now PDP is claiming that during their sixteen-year tenure recorded significant milestones, what were the details?

 

Both the APC and the Federal Government need to evolve new strategy of problem-solving communication in the country. Part of the objective should be to facilitate partnership to communicate activities of the party, government through engagement with major national players – non-governmental actors, civil society, labour, tranditional and religious leaders, women, youths, persons with disability, etc. The goal of partnership is to generate public awareness around initiatives of governments, especially Federal Government. There should be regular consultations to engage Nigerians aimed at reviewing progress being made to address national challenges. In the context of consultative activities with major national players, initiatives to rebuild, re-orient organisations of civil society and labour movement can be developed based on a strategy to ensure that civil society and labour leaders, for instance, directly supervise and coordinate initiatives.

 

Refining the politics of these organisations to be value-driven should also be the goal. A situation where both civil society and labour activities are oriented as opposition politics founded on falsehood can only be exploitative against majority of Nigerians, including the working people. Effective engagements with citizens through their organisations and their leaders will help build trust and endear the party, which can support processes of membership recruitment for the party.

 

Part of the task of reviewing progress in addressing national challenges would also be to ensure that the current strategy of excessive politicisation of insecurity by the PDP and their supports is stopped. At the same time, appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that Nigerians appreciate all the unprecedented investments in military hardware: dozens of new aircraft, ships, battle tanks and others being procured and deployed in the fight against insecurity in the country by the APC led Federal Government. Initiatives under the new Police Act to provide Community Policing can be similarly appreciated by Nigerians, as well as establishment of the Police Trust Fund to finance training, logistics and welfare of Nigeria Police and investment in technology-aided policing of land and maritime environments.

 

Through problem-solving communication strategy, Nigerians will be able to see through all the false propaganda of the PDP and their supporters and accordingly recognise all the successes being recorded in the fight against insecurity in the country. For instance, President Buhari himself, in the October 1, 2021, national address, highlighted that ‘In the North East region alone, over eight thousand Boko Haram terrorists have surrendered.’ In addition, ‘the Nigerian Armed Forces have recruited over 17,000 personnel across all ranks.’ Similarly, as contained in the October 1, 2021 broadcast of President Buhari, approval has been given to ‘the Nigerian Police Force to recruit 10,000 police officers annually over the next six years.’

 

While it is important that Nigerians apply every necessary pressure on government and the APC to expeditiously address the problem of insecurity in the country, efforts must also be made to prevent a situation whereby desperate politicians seek to take advantage of Nigeria’s security challenges based on false propaganda. In all promises APC made in 2015, there are initiatives being implement by the Federal Government, which include developing Nigeria’s infrastructure, in Rail, Roads, Ports, Power are ongoing; achieving agricultural self-sufficiency; entrenching technology in government processes and service delivery; creating the first truly national social safety net in the history of Nigeria; among many others.

 

Part the challenge of excessive politicisation is that it also threatens internal unity of APC members and leaders. For instance, excessive politicisation in the country is influencing decision of some APC leaders to push negotiation for the emergence of the party’s Presidential Candidate for 2023 elections outside the structures of the APC. This is now threatening the unity of leaders of APC. Around the whole question of power shift, some leaders of the APC have gone outside the structures of the party to mobilise support for the party to zone its Presidential candidate for 2023 to the Southern part of the country. In a worrisome way, loose partnership is being contracted with a section of leaders from other opposition political parties, notably PDP.

 

It is important that all APC leaders are reminded that the campaign for power shift is about writing or respecting the rules of our party. This should be handled within the structures of the APC. It is belittling for APC leaders who are statutory members of all the relevant structures of the party that are competent to take final decision on the matter to go outside the structures of the party and forge partnership with PDP leaders to compel a decision, one way or the other, on the matter. It simply means loss of confidence on the structures of the party, which in this matter couldn’t have been the case. It is therefore important that a strong appeal is made to all APC leaders to develop more confidence to negotiate every matter, including the issue of power shift, within the structures of APC.

 

The current trend, which appears to create divisions among APC leaders must be halted. Question of unity among APC leaders is a fundamental precondition for being able to continue to win the support of Nigerians, which is what can guarantee any electoral victory. In fact, the confidence of PDP and their supporters is only stronger in campaigning against APC and President Buhari’s led Federal Government, using false narrative of failure, because unity among the ranks of APC leaders and member is increasingly being broken. Even the reality of reactive and passive communication of APC led government initiatives is further becoming a dominant attribute because unity among APC leaders is getting weaker.

 

All APC members must strongly appeal to all APC leaders to rebuild confidence and ensure that every issue that should be addressed within the structures of the party are treated so. Perhaps, also in relation to the question of unity of leaders within the party, all governments produced by the party should be able to strengthen internal relations. Internal consultative processes should be functionally made stronger such that disputes between governments are well managed, negotiated and any possible agreement respected. The recent partnership between Lagos and Rivers States in relation to the legal dispute on Value Added Tax against the Federal Government is to say the least very disturbing. All party members and leaders should without prejudice to the grievances of Lagos State Government appeal to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu to initiate processes of direct engagement with the Federal Government to resolve all issues.

 

It is politically scandalous for APC state to sue APC Federal Government. Everything taken together – mobilising for power shift outside APC and the legal case between Lagos State and Federal Government – require that our leaders should be open to themselves. Beyond being open, APC leaders should have both discipline and respect for each other. Unity of leaders will be meaningless, if not impossible, without discipline and respect for one another. In fact, leaders will be unable to unite party members and Nigerians if they don’t have the required discipline and respect for one another. It is not by accident that public debate in Nigeria is very offensive. Citizens treat each other with disrespect and easily abuse each other in unprintable languages. This may perhaps be the true reflection of the quality of relationship among leaders.

 

The APC Caretaker and Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee need to take up the issue of uniting all APC leaders and ensure that relevant structures of the party are being used to facilitate negotiation on all emerging issues, including the question of power shift. All leaders of the party should be reminded that the fundamental issue of changing Nigeria will remain a dream so long as leaders failed to work for the development of the structures of the party. Building a party is beyond winning election, important as it is. Building the party is specifically about ensuring that structures of the party are competent and capable of facilitating negotiations among members and leaders on every issue. Every negotiation should produce an agreement which must be respected by every leader and member.

 

At this point, it is also important to appeal to the APC Caretaker Committee to conclude the work being done to amend the constitution of the party. Strengthening processes of disciplinary hearing and enforcement of decisions should be prioritised. Capacity of the party to regulate the conduct of members and leaders should be strengthened. Being a party envisioned to bring about change, regulating the conduct of party members and leaders will be an important catalysing factor to change Nigerian politics and produce the new Nigeria of our dream. The quality of any democracy is defined by the strength of political parties. Once political parties are irrelevant to the processes of regulating conducts of leaders, leaders are not united, disciplined and respect one another, democracy will be meaningless unresponsive and nonrepresentative, and cannot meet the expectations of citizens.

 

For APC to achieve the goal of producing a new Nigeria, first thing first, it must be a party with a leadership that is united, disciplined, and respectful. The process of re-organising the structures of APC must make the party functionally active in facilitating negotiations among leaders at all levels and all agreements reached must be respected by all. It is the process of negotiation and implementing agreements reached, which should be respected by all that can produce a New Nigeria!

[Abdul Oroh]

DearLukman,

 You are living in the past. You're  not seeing  reality. The failure to address issues of nepotism, equity and tolerance of Fulani herdsmen terrorism are the main reasons President Buhari's administration is seen to be failing. That must be clear to you. It is clear to  me. There is also a strong belief out there that our party, the APC, is not actually in power but some religious zealots in alliance with ethnic irredentists and beneficiaries of State capture like you are responsible for our predicament. When it suited you to team up with PDP, you did not hesitate in using overwhelming violence to rig out the APC in Edo State. You also spearheaded a major campaign against Oshiomhole and the elected structures of the party and removed them illegally. The APC has been  hijacked and run like a government parastatal and you are appealing to ghosts in the party to come  together and negotiate power shifts and issues within the competence of the judiciary. Why do we really need to negotiate power shift? The election of President Buhari is the outcome of power shift and the alliance by opposition parties to unite against the PDP. Is it not clear to you and those who live off power that it must shift to the south? I thought you should worry more about how to secure the country to make a free and fair election possible in 2023. Secondly, you can't claim not to know that the recovered loots are being re-looted by these evil alliance.  And corruption is accelerating instead of reducing.Even General Babangida had the temerity to boast that his administration was  of saints compared to our APC government. Did you question that? Did you not see all the private jets which took over the Mallam Aminu Kano Airport in Kano during the President's son's wedding as proof of that?  Are you not aware that the level of poverty now compounded by insecurity makes the issue of effective leadership imperative? You are working with our party elected  governors,  how many of them live and work in their states? At least you should know that. Keep enjoying your power. 

If Nigeria  survived or perished, history will remember this moment, especially the last six years. May Nigeria survive. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CSO-APC Engagement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cso-apc-engagem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cso-apc-engagement/LO0P123MB553616B6775C544B8965589DAEAD9%40LO0P123MB5536.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM

.

[Salihu Moh. Lukman]

Thanks very much Abdul and I sincerely respect your openness and above all your views. It is not about the merit, correctness or otherwise. But from all that I can deduce, it will appear that whatever issues we raise today will be defined based on our identities and who we are related to. I will not join issues with you based on that. But I will listen and respect you and your opinion even if I don’t merit any respect from you.

The other point is that I feel your pain about Adams but I am sorry, I don’t have any sympathy. We can’t build our democracy based on blind loyalty. At least, I can say with every confidence that my relationship with Adams is longer than yours. But unlike many of you from Edo who only became close to him when he became Governor, his strength used to be his capacity to accommodate and work with criticism. But I guess after becoming Governor he lost that. Which is why the Adams that turns up as National Chairman of APC wasn’t the Adams of the 1990s. I am reserving that for another time. It is an issues that must be engaged with Adams himself. Those of us who were with him at his formative period of leadership owe that much to him. It is not about sycophancy.

Finally, I think at this late hours of our lives, Abdul, we need to moderate our anger. Yes, no doubt we have a lot of disappointments. But we need to try and engage challenges facing this country with some levels of maturity. I will not be able to say more than this on this platform. If the opportunity presents itself for a proper discussion with you or any person interested, I will take it up.

I can assure you, and anyone who wish to join you, make any damning judgement about my person, who you imagine I am related to and what influence my position, it will not distract me from engaging national issues based on my limited knowledge. But if persuaded by superior rational arguments, I will be very open. But when reduced to pedestrian conversation of ethnicity, religion and sycophancy, I must confess my incompetence.

My best wishes to you Abdul. Regards 

SMLukman

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Oct 2021, at 06:45, 'Abdul Oroh' via CSO-APC Engagement <cso-apc-e...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

DearLukman,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cso-apc-engagement/1980618541.1464434.1633326342252%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Abdul Oroh]

 Dear Lukman 

Thanks for your prompt response and your plea that we manage our anger reasonably.  That is fine.  However, we should worry more about the factors fuelling the anger which primarily, is your type of  hypocrisy. When you launched your onslaught on Adams on behalf of your employers : the Governor's Forum, you didn't remember how far you'd come with Adams. You didn't remember that he gave you Edo State tax payers' money to  run for the  Senate in Kaduna State. The election you lost to Makarfi? Yes, I  know about that because I was there in Edo State. In Edo state we call it ingratitude. And if I am offended,  it is not because I am a sycophant but because I think it is immoral. You are free to say I am sycophant if you will. You're  also free to settle your personal grievances with Adams what ever they are and which ever way you want.  That is not the issue here and even if he was the target of your employers fury, why did they dissolve the party's structures at every level? Was that democracy? Was that what we fought for? Where you not part of the plot to hand over the government of Edo State to Obaseki and PDP through violence?  Or you think we are not aware of the role you all played? You claim you're not competent to discuss ethnicity but that only exposes the hypocrisy of those of you who discreetly  push ethnic domination because you benefit from it and deny it when it is covinient to claim you are progressive. If this is not true, can you swear you are not aware of the scheme to impose Fulani hegemony on Nigerians? Have you ever condemned the ethnic cleansing in your  Kaduna  state? In Plateau State? The killing  of farmers across the country  by Fulani herdsmen, and the kidnapping of Nigerians especially school children by your bandits?What is your response to the on-going large scale plundering of the nation's resources through parastatals and security agencies headed by your ethnic group? It is about time we  engaged these issues even if heaven  falls, otherwise you will have to find a new message other than "change" to convince the people to vote for our party in 2023. I think we all should worry more about the future of the country, the plight of our pauperised people who are daily terrorised by demons sponsored by those who desperately want to control keep power.Comrade Lukman  let us discuss how to douse the collective anger eating away the soul of our dear nation. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cso-apc-engagement/EE5B37B0-0CE2-4DDE-8BF5-F7DF1CADD91F%40gmail.com

.

[Salihu Moh. Lukman]

Once more Abdul, I will continue to respect you and the views you express. All the things you raise and the allegations are well noted. Thank you very much

SMLukman

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Oct 2021, at 14:03, Abdul Oroh <ao...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Dear Lukman