In August 2022, Mr Simon Kolawole first released his widely circulated contract-statement: 

“Who will Love this Country?” as front page of the ThisDay Newspapers of 21 August 2022 and again in August 2023, acting on the instructions of a former Minister of Power. The contract-statement is misleading, false, and malicious. It is calculated to divert attention 

from the wrongdoings of some former Power Ministers and other Government officials in respect the Mambilla Power Project. In 2022, I ignored the write-up but now that the former President has reacted to the same article that he appeared not to have seen in 2022, I will give a measured response.

THE CABLE NEWS STORY

The Cable News story credited to Pa Obasanjo about the Mambilla Power Project gave me much concern not because they were incorrect, but because they were attributed to our Baba Agbalagba, broadly revered in Yorubaland and a former President of Nigeria. For me, as a thoroughbred Omoluabi of Yorubaland, I can only politely say with all due respect: 

Baba, ko ri be, sa. (meaning, Baba, that is not correct, sir). That’s so much response to our revered Baba Agbalagba.

But to Pa Obasanjo as the former president, I will give fuller response here, albeit politely and in a measured dose. I served under this great former President for four years (1999 - 2003) first, as Special Assistant to the Minister of Power and Steel, then to the Minister of  Justice and Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (Uncle Bola Ige) and later, as Honourable Minister of Defence (Navy), then Honourable Minister of Power and Steel. I also worked closely under him from 2003 to 2007 as the Head of the National eGovernment  Strategies, mainstreaming e-enabled techniques, and applications to tiers of Government at the Federal and State levels.

Let me start by reacting to Pa Obasanjo as former President who told the story to The Cable News of how a shrewd Animal Farm Manager General (AFMG) set an elaborate system in the farm under his watch to ensure that only rats, mice, and small rodents could wander  past the robust farm fence, but rabbits, antelopes, and other bigger animals needed the AFMG to open special gates for them to go out. The story explained how the AFMG ran the farm with iron hands for eight years that all and sundry applauded him. Then, after twenty years, the AFMG realised that six big elephants had, without his knowing, passed through the rodent holes that he installed to block bigger animals. Pa Obasanjo also narrated how the AFMG, now in his retirement, became furious and desperately wished he had found out this negligence during his stewardship so that he could sack the Farm Assistant who let elephants escape through the rodent holes. I felt disappointed and ashamed to find that the Animal Farm Manager General was, indeed, our most revered Baba Agbalagba, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the former President himself. I still wonder if The Cable News reported him correctly.

In fact, I wish to say with all humility and respect that all the things credited to the former President in the extensive interview in The Cable News  are not correct. Take for instance The Cable News quoted Pa Obasanjo as saying: “...When I was in office, Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise Power, ran away from Nigeria. I would have jailed him.” This is far from being correct because Mr. Leno Adesanya was virtually always in the Aso Rock Villa during Chief Obasanjo’s presidency. As a matter of fact, the same president and Mr. Adesanya sat together on the high table in Aso Rock as Baba Oko and Baba Iyawo respectively at the wedding of the president's son and Mr. Adesanya’s niece in 2002.

THE TRUTH ABOUT MAMBILLA

Let me briefly put the records straight on the Mambilla Power Project.

1. When the former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, sent an emissary, in person of his close young associate who is a Labour Party (LP) Chieftain to me on 26 August 2023 to discuss the Mambilla Power Project, I knew the former president was getting pretty anxious. My last encounter with the former President was in late last year, 2022 and early this year (2023) when the former President was frantically persuading leaders of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), of which I am the National Secretary, to team up with and support the then Presidential Candidate Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP). We declined and turned down the entreaties of former President Olusegun Obasanjo on behalf of the Labour Party, LP.

2. Seven days later, on the 3 September 2023, The Cable News reported an extensive interview, https://www.thecable.ng/obasanjo-i-knew-buhari-didnt-understand-economics-but-didntknow-he-was-a-reckless-spender/amp, granted by the former President titled: “I knew Buhari didn’t understand economics but didn’t know he was so reckless.” In this interview, the former president made misleading and incorrect statements on the Mambilla Power Project.

3. I have submitted a 53 paragraph, 14-page Statement backed with 15 Attachments in 82- page document as an affidavit to the courts in Nigeria and France in respect of the Mambilla Power Project to clear my name. In deference to Pa Obasanjo and as a mark of great respect to the former President, I have sent a copy of these documents through my lawyers to him to refreshen his memory.

4. The former president was not correct when he referred to the award to Sunrise simply as a $6 billion contract (that is, N800 billion in 2003) under his watch. In truth, it was a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract in which the FGN did not need to pay any  amount to the contractor, Messrs Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (Sunrise). As a matter of fact, Sunrise has not been paid a single Naira or Dollar by the FGN from 2000 till date (14/9/23). Sunrise was to source for funds and execute the project with own funds. The investment of Sunrise to construct the Mambilla hydroelectric project up to completion stage to deliver electricity was adjudged at a maximum of $6 billion by four Ministers of Power and the former president (Chief Obasanjo) before I became Minister of Power. Sunrise was to recoup his investment from the sale of the generated electricity over a 30- to 40-year period at pre-determined tariffs, also agreed with FGN before May 2003.

5. I followed due process and got all necessary approvals for the BOT contract award to Sunrise on 22 May 2003 and there are records to show that the former President Obasanjo propelled the processes from the beginning in 2000 to the end in May 2003. In fact, Sunrise started Mambilla project three years before I became Minister of Power and had arranged meetings with Chinese Companies and Chinese President in China in which three Power Ministers and the then President Obasanjo attended between 2000 and 2002 before I was appointed Minister of Power. On the very day (28 Nov 2002), that I resumed office as Minister of Power, Pa Obasanjo himself, in a formal letter, handed me 

his presidential approval on the Sunrise proposal with an instruction that Sunrise be invited “for the final negotiations for the execution of the Mambilla Power Project.”

NO ONE QUERIED ME FOR 20 YEARS

The following played out after I had ceased to be a minister from 29 May 2003. It turned out that (a) Between 2003 to 2007, President Obasanjo was attempting to invalidate the Sunrise May 2003 BOT contract on Mambilla Project; and (b) Between 2007 to 2015, the Yar’Adua and Jonathan presidencies recognised the Mambilla Project as a BOT contract validly awarded in May 2003, cancelled the component of it awarded as a procurement contract by President Obasanjo on the 28 May 2007 at $1.46 billion, and signed a fresh agreement on the Mambilla Hydropower Project in 2012 with Sunrise and (c) Between 2015 to 2023, the then President Buhari cancelled and re-awarded the Mambilla Power Project, and was making and breaching own Agreements with Sunrise. In all of these, spanning 20 (twenty) years, none of the Presidents (Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, Malam Musa Yar’Adua, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan or Gen. Muhammadu Buhari) asked me or questioned me about  issuing any unauthorised Mambilla contract. This is because all the Nigerian Presidents, including Chief Obasanjo, were aware that I did nothing wrong.

BOT versus PROCUREMENT CONTRACT

However, at a time after May 2003, the then President Obasanjo appeared to have changed his mind on the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) model in which the private investor would provide own funds, a path that President Obasanjo and six Ministers of Power, three 

Ministers of Finance, two Ministers of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources, and the Debt Management Office had pursued for four years. The former President then chose to embark on a new pathway in which Nigeria would execute the Mambilla Power Project by  paying from Government own funds. 

The former President decided, therefore, to break the Mambilla Hydropower Project into smaller components, like civil engineering works, hydraulic works, structural works etc. with the intention to award them as separate multiple contracts as Government procurements, on cash and carry basis, for which Nigerian Government would pay mobilisation fees and make other payments in stages to contractors. When one of the contractors, which got a component of the Mambilla project awarded by President Obasanjo as $1.46 billion procurement contract, presented its request for a $400 million mobilisation fees, President Yar’Adua scrutinised the contract and cancelled it in 2008 because of proven corruption on the part of officials who served under President Obasanjo between 2003 to 2007.

THE CRUX OF THE CASE

Dr. Agunloye awarded the Mambilla Power Project as a BOT at no cost to FGN, while the former President Obasanjo started to re-award the project as multiple procurement contracts at humongous costs to FGN and with associated corrupt practices which were uncovered by succeeding Presidents.

WHO WILL LOVE NIGERIA?

I awarded Mambilla Power Project as BOT at no cost to Nigeria. Former President Obasanjo awarded one component part of the same Mambilla project for $1.46 billion as procurement contract, former President Jonathan signed a 2012 General Project Execution  Agreement and former President Buhari and his then Minister of Power, Barrister Babatunde Raji Fashola awarded another component of the Mambilla Project at a whopping $5.8 billion payable by FGN in cash. The FGN awarded, re-awarded and cancelled contracts and Agreements at will and now must face the consequences at International Arbitration Courts. The result is that the Mambilla Hydropower Project has been stalled for yet another twenty years, and the former President (Chief Olusegun Obasanjo) and others are feeling greatly uneasy about the consequences. This is why the Simon Kolawole’s question, “Who will Love the Country?” should have been addressed to his (Kolawole’s) sponsors, not me.

CONSPIRACY

Currently, some former and serving FGN officials are desperately attempting to “criminalise” the Mambilla Power Project by trying to make me the scapegoat with the sole aim to avoid consequent legal contractual obligations of the Government arising from breaches of agreements with Sunrise. This “criminalisation strategy” was inadvertently exposed by Mr Simon Kolawole. The Government officials are using State Apparatus to intimidate, harass and threaten me. The EFCC invited me on 16 May 2023, 20 (twenty) years after I had ceased to be Minister of Power and grilled me for over eight hours. The Investigating Officer confronted me with “issuing a contract of $6 billion to Sunrise without authority”. That was the very first time ever that anyone had questioned me about the Mambilla Power Project, and it was because of the criminalisation conspiracy by those who actually have committed  against Nigeria. The EFCC threatened that they were in possession of my Bank Statements for the last 25 (twenty-five) years. I explained my innocence and made formal statements to the EFCC. I had also sent more documents and materials to the Commission and the court after. My lawyers have sued EFCC to stop harassing me and have challenged EFCC to make public my bank accounts and charged the commission to go to court if they have any case against me. 

CONCLUSION

We see that as the FGN faces the resultant consequences of breaching agreements and cancelling contracts with impunity, some former and serving Government officials, perhaps including former President Obasanjo, now want to use me as a scapegoat-victim to cover up their inappropriate practices and to evade looming fines and damages at international arbitrations.

Nobel Laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka, has said the electoral victory of President Bola Tinubu was aided by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, who parted ways with his erstwhile colleague, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar.

The Nobel Laureate said this, according to a statement on Saturday, during a dialogue organised by ‘Africa in the World,’ in Stellenbosch, South Africa.

According to the statement, Soyinka urged politicians to learn to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

He said, “The mistake we all continue to make is our insistence on regarding the recent Nigerian elections as an adversarial thriller. The contrary is the truth. The ballot tally accurately reflected what happens when a political party splits itself in two, especially so critically close to an election.

“What promised to be a spectacular contest is transformed into a Feast of Voluntary Donation of the spoils of war. That, however, is not always the ultimate destination – the re-gifting may continue, prodded by a sudden surge of regret. There remains, lurking in the background, a far more potent beneficiary.

“In this case, we easily recall it as the unregistered but loudly canvassed IPP – the Interim Peoples Party, usually to be found in bed with the military. The notorious Datti interview, menacing, intimidating and unambiguous, sets the scene for such re-entry. Then, history repeats itself over and over again, as currently manifested along the West African sub-region. The ‘call to arms’ is made literal by those whose trade is precisely that of arms.

“Barring such abrupt ‘patriotic intervention,’ however, the last word belongs to the Supreme Court. Until that conclusive hour, wherever and whenever the subject turns to the Nigerian elections, my contribution can be taken for granted in advance: Peter Obi did not win the Nigerian 2023 elections. Jointly with his erstwhile colleague of the PDP, Abubakar Atiku, they donated the outcome, even before the voting.

“Let politicians and their cohorts learn to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices within democratic options.”

During his speech at the event on Wednesday, the Nobel Laureate had accused the Labour Party of attempting to deceive Nigerians about the outcome of the February 25 election.

Meanwhile, the National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Abayomi Arabambi, has said Soyinka’s recent disclosure that Obi never won the election was nothing but the obvious truth that resonates with Nigerians.

Arabambi added that the party saw the reaction of its factional Chairman, Julius Abure, through his personal media aide, Mr Obiorah Ifoh, to Soyinka’s statement as nothing but an “affront and abuse from a rude boy to his grandfather.”

In a statement made available to the Sunday PUNCH, Arabambi said, “As a party, we knew that Professor Wole Soyinka was right in his submission because how does anyone claim to have won an election based solely on pejoratives, assumption, vague rhetoric and zero evidence pointing to such being the case?

“It was all on the expectation that the actual winner would be disqualified and by some stroke of black magic, the candidate in the third place will suddenly be declared winner without any proof of having scored the majority vote is absolute judicial madness on display by Peter Obi, Julius Abure and their blind allies.

“We know we lost that election, it was true Obi and Abure wanted to do gbajue because ab initio, even when the presidential campaign council was formed in the north, Peter Obi used Igbo as state coordinators while a northerner remained their deputy.”

On a Friday in July 2005, Bayo Ojo, a Senior Advocate of Nigerian (SAN), quietly absconded from work in an office in Victoria Island, Lagos, from where he functioned then as the president of the Nigerian Bar Association, (NBA). The next working day, a Monday, he turned up in Abuja as President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 4th Attorney-General in five years.

Less than three months after assuming office as Attorney-General of the Federation, on 6 October 2005, Mr. Ojo filed a five-count charge before the Federal High Court against Alhaji Mujahid Asari Dokubo, at the time the self-proclaimed leader of the Niger Delta Peoples’ Volunteer Force, NDPVF. Asari was also a leading member of the Pro-National Conference Organisation, PRONACO. The crimes charged included two counts of treasonable felony, two counts of running an unlawful society, and one count of publishing “a rumour…. which is likely to cause fear and alarm.”

At the time, Asari was a detainee of the Federal Government and widely known to be a leading figure in the Niger Delta militia movement, the activities of whose members caused the country quite considerable reputational and revenue damage.

The background to the charges was a meeting of the Pan-Niger Delta Action Conference/Council, which took place in Samsy Hotel in Benin City, Edo State, on 28 August 2005. The meeting attracted a broad coalition of advocacy groups on the Niger Delta, including NDPVF, Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Chikoko Movement, Great Commonwealth of The Niger Delta (GCND), Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), Itsekiri National Youth Council (INYC), National Youth Council of Ogoni People (NYCOP), Civil Liberties Organization (CLO), Niger Delta Women for Justice (NDWJ), Congress for the Liberation of Ikwere People (COLIP), Supreme Egbesu Assembly (SEA), Delta Stakeholder Today Peoples Council, Socialist Workers Party, Federated Niger Delta Ijaw Communities (FINDIC), National Association of Ijaw Female Students, and People with Disability Action Network (PEDANET).

The conference communique, “castigated Governors, Local Government Chairmen and NDDC Directors in connivance with the Federal Government that they looted the oil revenue accruing to the people of Niger Delta while pursuing their personal projects and aggrandizement. This, they felt, had left the people in a state of neglect and abject poverty. They also cited the recent hike in fuel pump price as one of their grievances.”

The communique also called President Obasanjo “dictatorial.” At that time, apparently, Nigerians were not allowed to say such things. The signatories to the communique included Asari and Uche Okwukwu, the lawyer who was to later emerge controversially as factional leader of Ohaneze Ndigbo.

Nearly two weeks after the conference, on or about 10 September 2005, Asari granted an interview to the Independent Newspaper, whose proprietor at the time was widely known to be a governor in President Obasanjo’s party. According to the charges preferred by Bayo Ojo, Asari in the interview uttered the following words: “Nigeria is an evil entity. It has nothing to stand on and I will continue to fight and try to see that Nigeria dissolves and disintegrates and I am ready to hold on to the struggle to see to this till the day I will die. I do not see any reason why I should continue to live with people that have no relationship with me whatsoever.”

For these acts of calling a meeting, attending it, and thereafter issuing a communique critical of the government of the day, and saying things that the government of the day did not like, Bayo Ojo accused Asari “and others (presently at large)” as the charges sweetly put it, of plotting to remove President Obasanjo by other than constitutional means, threatening to take up arms in order to intimidate and overawe the President and his government, and of levying war against the country.

On his arraignment, Asari pleaded not guilty and applied for bail, which the Federal High Court promptly declined citing national security, in a ruling that read like the work of the spokesperson of the State Security Service (SSS). On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Federal High Court.

On 8 June 2006, a full panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Aloysius Katsina Alu, delivered judgment, affirming the denial of bail. The author of the unanimous judgment of the court was Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, who would 16 years later be forced out as Chief Justice of Nigeria after running the Supreme Court into the ground. The relevant part of his judgment read: “where National Security (sic) is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened human rights or the individual right of those responsible take second place. Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until the National Security (sic) can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right. Once the security of this nation is in jeopardy and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, the individual’s liberty or right may not even exist.”

The Supreme Court did not pretend to explain its decision in terms of any rational logics of judicial reasoning, such as determining the scope of permissible and proportionate constraints on constitutional guarantees of assembly, association, or free speech. Strictly on the facts contained in the charge, it was difficult to see how attending a public meeting in a hotel and issuing a communique thereafter could engage national security at this level. Working from answer to question, however, the court placed the Asari of 2005-06 and the advocates for resource equity in the Niger Delta beneath the law.

The reasoning and decision making of the Supreme Court in the Asari Dokubo case in 2006 was plainly squalid, a poor example of the law of rule instead of the rule of law. But this is the problem with the convenient situational ethics of contemporary Nigerian law. The only thing constant about it is its shiftiness. Like the windvane, it has no moorings in principle.

This is what happens when lawyers, judges and law enforcement arrive at notions of legality by adapting the law to predictions of what pleases people in power. This is why few things in Nigeria these days are unlawful: abuse of power, grand corruption, judicial malfeasance, extra judicial killings, election rigging, all are kosher.

But the law of rule portends equal opportunity danger for its makers too. One decade after the Supreme Court judgment in Asari Dokubo’s case, in October 2016, the regime of President Muhammadu Buhari chose to terrorise the same judiciary that had invented that open-ended doctrine of national security. Addressing the annual conference of the NBA in Abuja in 2018, President Buhari gleefully recited the words of Justice Tanko Muhammad in the Asari Dokubo case to justify his mis-treatment of the judiciary. In a misbegotten show of enthusiasm, the members of the NBA gave him a standing ovation.

Meanwhile, in 2023, the shoe is on the other foot. There is a new party at the helm and the same Asari with his Niger Delta Militants and adherents of the SEA have been storming Abuja, organizing undisguised show of force in its favour and threatening those who oppose the current dispensation with hail, brimstone, desolation and worse. This time, rather than endure persecution from the law, Asari is now the toast of the law enforcement. He is free to do what he likes while the law conveniently averts its gaze and the Supreme Court, a stone throw from his preferred stomping grounds, is helpless. That is the life cycle of the law of rule.

In 2005 it was unjustified to place Asari and the Niger Delta advocates underneath the law. At the time, the ruling party at the federal level was the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). Today, with the All Progressives Congress (APC) in power, it is just as unjustifiable to place Asari and his followers above the law.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The upsurge in military coups in Africa is leading to curious propositions on the suitability of “liberal democracy” on the continent. Questions are being asked as to whether or not we need to tinker with our practice of democracy. In a recent interview with TheCable, former President Olusegun Obasanjo — who led Nigeria as a military ruler and also as an elected president — linked most recent coups to controversial elections and concluded that Africans need to discuss the way forward. He did not suggest any alternative, sure, but he insisted that we must begin to think of one. All attempts to draw him out failed as he scoffed at all examples cited as evidence of Africa’s progress in democracy.

Obasanjo said: “Out of the six countries that have experienced coups (in recent times), three of them are directly from elections. Burkina Faso, Guinea Conakry, and Gabon that we have just had are directly from elections. The other three are indirect, if you like.” He said he started noticing the trend in Guinea Conakry when Col Mamady Doumbouya overthrew President Alpha Condé in 2021, recounting his meetings with top officials of the junta. “I listened to them and concluded that we had a new phenomenon on our hands. I realised that they had the support of the youths and were not thinking of staying in power for four, five years. They are in for a generation,” Obasanjo recalled.

I do not agree with Obasanjo’s assertion that “the liberal type of democracy as practised in the West will not work for us”. For starters, democracy is a political system in which a government is periodically elected by the people and/or their representatives. In a democracy, there are constitutional guarantees of universal suffrage, rule of law, checks and balances, and fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association, etc. Free and fair elections are central to constitutional democracy. There should be no intimidation of voters or political opponents. There should be no material inducement of voters and electoral officials. These are basic tenets.

Does Nigeria meet the barest requirements to be called a liberal democracy? After all, we run a multiparty system, which political scientists regard as a hallmark of democracy because it institutes the principles of freedom of choice and diversity of ideas. If there is only one party in the system, the aim of representative democracy is undermined. Also, we hold regular elections — since 1999, we have had a general election every four years. Minus hitches here and there, Nigerians have largely exercised their franchise. We also have democratic institutions, such as the legislature, the judiciary and the media. But can we truly say we run a liberal democracy like the West? That is the question.

In Nigeria, the use and misuse of state power and patronage is a major obstacle to democratisation. There are a million examples, but the most recent would be that of Mr Wale Adedayo, chairman of Ijebu East LGA, Ogun state, who accused Prince Dapo Abiodun, the governor, of hijacking the funds meant for councils. Councillors from Ijebu East thereafter apologised to Abiodun. Meanwhile, Adedayo was arrested and detained by the Department of State Services (DSS), which should ordinarily be dealing with security threats. He has now been impeached as council chairman. This is authoritarianism. In a liberal democracy, “as practised in the West”, there is room for dissent.

This calls to mind the seminal essay written by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way entitled ‘The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’ (Journal of Democracy, July 2002). They did intellectual justice to the theme: ‘Elections without Democracy’. Any Nigerian who desires to understand the nature and texture of our brand of democracy would do well to read the essay, which the authors further developed into a book, published in 2010. They wrote that the post-Cold War world “has been marked by the proliferation of hybrid political regimes” particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, where many regimes “have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction”.

They postulated: “Analyses frequently treat mixed regimes as partial or ‘diminished’ forms of democracy, or as undergoing prolonged transition to democracy. Such characterisations imply that these cases are moving in a democratic direction. Yet… this is not the case.” They termed it ‘Competitive Authoritarianism’, where “formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy… they may be better described as a (diminished) form of authoritarianism.”

State institutions, such as security agencies and the legislature, are deployed to satisfy the whims of incumbents. Levitsky and Way noted: “Although incumbents in competitive authoritarian regimes may routinely manipulate formal democratic rules, they are unable to eliminate them or reduce them to a mere facade. Rather than openly violating democratic rules (for example, by banning or repressing the opposition and the media), incumbents are more likely to use bribery, co-optation, and more subtle forms of persecution, such as the use of tax authorities, compliant judiciaries, and other state agencies to ‘legally’ harass, persecute, or extort cooperative behaviour from critics.”

In “competitive authoritarianism”, there are four arenas of “democratic contestation”, namely elections, legislature, judiciary and media. “In competitive authoritarian regimes… elections are often bitterly fought. Although the electoral process may be characterized by large-scale abuses of state power, biased [government] media coverage, (often violent) harassment of opposition candidates and activists, and an overall lack of transparency, elections are regularly held, competitive (in that major opposition parties and candidates usually participate),” they wrote, adding that although legislatures tend to be weak, “they occasionally become focal points of opposition activity.”

My reading of this essay within the Nigerian nay African context is that we have not been practising liberal democracy. What we have been practising in the main is “competitive authoritarianism” as well articulated by Levitsky and Way. It is, therefore, out of place to conclude that liberal democracy will not work in Africa as “it does in Western societies” when we have not given it a try. A system where a council chairman cannot ask a governor for the release of statutory allocations is far from liberal. Even if the council chairman was handpicked by the governor, it is nothing short of authoritarianism for the governor to take a legitimate demand as an affront on his majesty.

In Nigeria, conventional wisdom is that “government will always defeat you”. From the time Obasanjo was president, state institutions have been routinely manipulated to intimidate and emasculate anyone considered out of line, regardless of the provisions of the laws and the dictates of democracy. Your passport can be seized, your property sealed or bulldozed, your tax bill inflated, your employment terminated, and so on and so forth, at any time of the day because of your political leaning or dissent. There is no way on earth we can classify this authoritarian culture as liberal democracy and then speed to the conclusion that it is not working or cannot work in Africa.

Another dangerous trend which undermines liberal democracy is the rule of the mob, which has become increasingly disturbing since the advent of social media as a centre for political mobilisation. The first time I noticed this was in the 2015 presidential poll when it was considered a mortal sin to support a particular candidate. It completely went out of hand in the 2023 presidential poll. People were classified as enemy of Nigeria for not supporting a particular candidate. Anyone with a different opinion became a subject of cyber bullying. Yet, freedom of choice is core to liberal democracy. These authoritarian mobsters on social media cannot be classed as democrats, much less liberal.

But what exactly is the option to “liberal democracy”? I am eager to know. Should we return to monarchy, where all powers belong to the king and he can decide to take your wife? Or is this a euphemistic campaign for military coup? I would ordinarily not be amused if not that many of those doing coup-baiting today were among those who talked the most about “Lekki massacre” in Lagos and “Shiite massacre” in Zaria. I take it that many are too young or naïve to understand how military juntas operated in Nigeria in the 1980s and 1990s — or they are so blinded by desperation and bitterness that they can no longer see beyond their nose. Military rule is never an option for me.

My conclusion is that we need more democracy, not less of it. What we need is to tinker with our current practice to make it liberal, more liberal. Democracy regularly faces stress tests even in the most advanced countries — such as the US and the UK — and what we should be discussing in Nigeria is how to deepen our practice, not how to replace it with authoritarianism. Whereas we have taken some important steps since 1999, our democratisation project is still obstructed by the authoritarian mentality of persons in power and the intolerant rhetoric of intolerant social media thugs. This is undermining our basic freedoms: of expression, of choice, of association.

May I, at this stage, point out that liberal democracy is an aspiration. Good can get better. No matter the obstacles on our way, the solution is to keep going, not backslide. I want to live in a society where civil liberties are the norm. I’m aware that other forms of government have yielded fruits elsewhere — China and most Arab countries do not practise liberal democracy and they are recording significant socio-economic progress — but the Nigerian reality has been that neither monarchy nor military dictatorship has turned us to world beaters. We’ve tasted it all. I would vote for democracy, knowing that I have a say in my destiny and I also have options if my choice lets me down. Priceless.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

AUTONOMY ACRIMONY

The Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) went on strike under President Muhammadu Buhari seeking, among other things, “university autonomy”. Now, the same union is rejecting “university autonomy” under President Bola Tinubu. That is why I think we are not yet having an honest conversation on the kind of university system we want in Nigeria. It appears, to me, that “autonomy” means funding without accountability. Pardon me but it will not work. Meanwhile, federal universities are already charging high fees without calling them “tuition” and we are still thinking we have tuition-free university education. Let us sit down and reason together. Sincerely.

ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY

I will raise up my hand and say I was one of those who criticised former President Olusegun Obasanjo for going round the world looking for “foreign investors” when he was in office. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that there is a place for economic diplomacy. Some investors will come on their own but there are those who need assurance from the highest levels. After all, we are the ones who need them. The soundbites from President Bola Tinubu’s strips to India and UAE are music to my ears and I can now only sit in my house and wish words will become actions soon. We need every dollar that can come into Nigeria. We need investments. We need jobs. We need oxygen. Emergency.

AKINTOLA WILLIAMS, RIP

Mr Akintola Williams was one of those accomplished Nigerians I wish to live the kind of lives they lived. Williams lived life to the fullest, attained every height possible in his chosen path, managed to escape controversies and left a legacy that will be there for generations unborn. In 1949, while in the UK, he became the first Nigerian chartered accountant. In 1952, he set up Akintola Williams & Co, reputed as the pioneer chartered accounting firm in Africa. His younger siblings were well known — the late Chief FRA Williams, the first Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and the late Rev KJ Williams, a cleric. When he died on Monday at 104, Williams left nothing but blessed memories behind. Adieu.

AND FINALLY…

Mr Bayo Adelabu, minister of power, took to X on Thursday to explain the fire outbreak at the Kainji/Jebba transmission station. A lot of the posts were coated in technical terms that an average reader would not understand, even though the idea was to communicate to the public. I guess the posts were drafted by, understandably, a technical person. Nevertheless, the minister should continue to keep us updated via his X handle, preferably in the language we understand. Ironically, the only thing that some of us understood in the posts was the opening line of “fire outbreak with explosion sound”. A friend said he should have added “gboa!!!” to complete the sentence. Hilarious.

Frank Tietie, the Executive Director of Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER), has accused President Bola Tinubu of contravening relevant laws in the way he removed the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, former deputy governors of the bank, and appointed replacements.

Tinubu on Friday named Dr. Olayemi Michael Cardoso as the new CBN Governor, pending approval of the Senate.

Tietie alleged that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that President Tinubu sought the approval of the majority of the Senate, as enshrined in the CBN Act and other relevant laws, to remove Emefiele.

President Tinubu had suspended Emefiele in June, citing the need for a thorough investigation into his tenure.

Nearly two months later, on a Friday, President Tinubu nominated Cardoso as the new governor of the apex bank.

Additionally, he put forward the names of four individuals to serve as deputy governors of the CBN: Mrs. Emem Nnana Usoro, Mr. Muhammad Sani Abdullahi Dattijo, Mr. Philip Ikeazor, and Dr. Bala M. Bello.

Tietie, however, described the entire scenario as a constitutional error, asserting,”The recently announced removal of the embattled Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele and the Deputy Governors of the Bank by the fiat of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not in compliance with the provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007. Therefore, it is illegal!

“Whereas Section 11 of the CBN Act provides for several grounds for the removal of the CBN Governor or Deputy Governors, whenever such removal is based on the decision of the President, as in this reported case of Emiefele and his deputies, it can only have effect where the President has first sought and obtained the approval of a two-thirds Senate majority.

“Clearly, there is no evidence that the President indeed sought and obtained the required two-thirds majority of the Nigerian Senate before announcing the formal removal of Governor Emefiele with his deputies and the All appointment of a new Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“Consequently, the president is in error, and all his recent actions in removal and appointment of a Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria can be set aside by the courts,” he stated in a statement made available to THE WHISTLER on Saturday.

Tietie, while recognizing President Tinubu’s constitutional powers, called for the respect of the rule of law to preserve the democratic tenets of the country.

“According to the Court Appeal in the case of Olotu v. President of Federal Republic of Nigeria & ors, it held that: It is a trite point of law that when a statute dictates a certain mode of doing something, then that method and no other must be employed in the performance of that act. Put differently, where a legislation lays down a procedure for a thing, there should be no other method of doing it_

“Nigeria operates a Presidential-Federalist system of government with a high concentration of political and executive powers in the person of the President.

“Therefore, this infraction of the CBN Act by the President on the removal of the CBN Governor may pass without any censure of the National Assembly or review by the Judiciary.

“But it is such disregard for plain provisions of the law by the President who is supposed to set the example of legal compliance, that creates the usual incipient negative impact on constitutional democracy which rests on the rule of law.

“Therefore whenever an administration starts glossing over express provisions of the law that serve to guarantee order, peace, good governance and economic prosperity of Nigeria, the culture of disregard for court order and widespread violation of human rights begins to cascade down the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government together with all the other strata of government across the states and local governments.

“This has been the bane of Nigeria’s stable development in all spheres and the recipe for corrupt abuse of political power and violation of human rights. That’s why military junta often truncated national democracies. May that be far from us!

“The Nigerian state spends huge financial and human resources to maintain its democratic structures. Therefore, the National Assembly and its leadership must stand up at all times to live up to their responsibilities in upholding the principles of democracy and separation of powers to avoid tyrannical acts of the executive by requiring strict compliance to every law that mandates its approval on such matters the President is required to apply for.

“Therefore, when the National Assembly indeed discharges its roles in the political equation of checks and balances with the President and the Judiciary, there will be less of interventions by self styled but well-meaning activists and civil society organisations who are often referred to as busybodies but are determined to seek judicial review of executive actions to ensure the rule of law and a stable Nigerian society,” he said.

Many NIRSAL, NSPMC, NIBSS Executives Undergo Interrogation

No fewer than 20 persons with links to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and its immediate past governor, Godwin Emefiele, have so far been questioned by the special investigators appointed by President Bola Tinubu to probe the apex bank.

Among those interrogated were the four deputy governors of the apex bank, some directors and some drivers including Emefiele’s, sources said yesterday.

According to one of the sources, the drivers were interviewed because “they were the ones who carried the big men around.”

The sources added: “Many directors, especially the ones directly under the deputy governors, were interviewed.

“They have also invited officials of the Nigeria Security Printing and Minting Company (NSPMC) and those in charge of all those intervention programmes were also invited.”

Some officials of NIRSAL Microfinance Bank (NMFB), Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS), were similarly summoned.

The special investigators paid a quiet visit to the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL Plc) on Friday in furtherance of their assignment.

But no arrest was made on that occasion, it was gathered.

Sources also said Shuaib Ahmed, the Executive Secretary of the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRC), and his deputy, Iheanyi Anyahara, were invited to appear before the panel in connection with the preparation of the CBN audited financial statements from 2016 to 2022.

One source said: “Some of those summoned are detained till the following day if their interrogation takes longer than anticipated or if they need some documents from their office and they did not bring them along. They will be detained while they send for the documents.

“Also if they are interrogating someone and he is being linked with someone else, the person is kept there till they invite the other person, and they will be interrogated separately.

“We can’t put a number to those invited yet. Let’s just say close to 20 have been invited.

The special investigator’s invitation may also be extended to retired directors.

“Any director who has retired and has anything to do with the case will be invited. Even board members who have retired can be invited,” the source added.

A parallel investigation of the CBN is being carried out by the Department of State Services (DSS) under the inter-agency committee.

It was the inter-agency committee that detained deputy governors Aisha Ahmad and Kingsley Obiora.

Continuing, the source said: “The DSS investigative team is different from Obaze’s team.

“What I don’t understand is where they submit their own report. Or do they just want to keep it for their own (inter agency) information since it is not stated anywhere who ordered them to do that.

“Everybody knows Obaze’s team gets its directives from the President.”

President Tinubu, in a July 28, 2023 letter, appointed Obaze, the founding Executive Secretary of the FRC, to probe the activities of the apex bank and its related entities.

He is looking into the books of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Ltd (NNPCL), the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and other government business entities, which the President, in the letter he personally signed, said was in continuation of government’s anti-corruption fight.

The letter reads: “In accordance with the fundamental objectives set forth in section 15(5) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), this administration is, today, continuing the fight against corruption by appointing you as a Special Investigator, to investigate the CBN and related entities.

“This appointment shall be with immediate effect and you are to report directly to my office.

Former Aviation Minister, Femi Fani-Kayode, has rebuked his former boss and ex-president, Olusegun Obasanjo, for what he deemed as an “embarrassing” treatment of Yoruba traditional rulers during the recent inauguration of a project in Iseyin, Oyo State.

The incident occurred on Friday when Obasanjo attended the commissioning of the Iseyin Campus of the College of Agricultural Sciences and Renewable Natural Resources of the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Iseyin, alongside the Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde.

During the event, Obasanjo reportedly ordered traditional rulers in attendance to stand and greet Governor Makinde — an action that was deemed a desecration of the traditional institution in Yoruba land.

Expressing his dismay at the incident, Fani-Kayode, who served as Obasanjo’s Special Assistant (Public Affairs) from 2003 to 2006, censured his former boss for ridiculing the monarchs in public.

“I am deeply saddened and utterly mortified by the way in which former President Olusegun Obasanjo lambasted our reverred (sic) traditional rulers in Oyo state and “ordered” them to “stand up” and “sit down” as if they were children.

“This is the same OBJ that, once upon a time, displayed his respect, humility and I daresay greatness by bowing, kneeling and prostrating before our monarchs, even when he was President, yet today he talks to them as if they are his garbage collectors and orders them to jump up and down like a molue driver talking to his beleaguered passengers and a motor park tout talking to a bunch of jobless and worthless underlings,” Fani-Kayode wrote in a Facebook post.

The former minister further criticized Obasanjo’s association with Peter Obi in the last presidential election, saying Obasanjo’s support for Obi’s presidential bid had diminished and demystified the former president.

Fani-Kayode had supported President Bola Tinubu’s presidential bid and worked in his campaign organisation.

“How can a man who dedicated his life to and fought for a united Nigeria support a closet secessionist, a political fraud, a patently deceitful, vainglorious and dishonest man and a religious bigot like Peter to be President?

“That the great OBJ is now a flaming Obidient is the 8th wonder of the world. It really makes no sense and it is simply mind-boggling. What we witnessed when OBJ insulted our traditional rulers in Oyo state yesterday was the Obi spirit which is now firmly embedded in him at work.

“First, he was at a gathering in Awka where the Yoruba race were labelled “political rascals” by some Igbo leaders without a response from him and now he has the guts and effontry (sic) to tell our traditional rulers to jump up and down like yoyos and clowns?

“Baba this is too much. Please respect yourself and stop embarrassing those of us that still have some affection and respect left for you.”

THE WHISTLER reported that the Oluwo of Iwo land, Oba Abdulrosheed Akanbi, had similarly voiced his disapproval of Obasanjo’s action toward the monarchs.

A bill proposing amendments to the law governing the maintenance of former governors and their deputies in Benue State has successfully passed its second reading at the state’s House of Assembly.

Our correspondent reports that the immediate past assembly under former Governor Samuel Ortom had enacted the law, making bogus provisions as retirement benefits for former governors’ and their deputies.

The House presided over by Deputy Speaker, Lami Danladi, debated on the matter.

During the debate, Samuel Agada, representing Ogbadibo State Constituency, led discussions on the bill.

Agada emphasised that the bill sought to amend the “Maintenance of Former Elected Governors of Benue State and Their Deputies Law, 2023,” which was hastily passed without a public hearing.

He expressed concerns over the ‘extravagant’ benefits provided by the existing law to former governors and deputies, contrasting this with the financial challenges faced by retirees who served the state for 35 years without receiving their pensions and gratuities due to supposed fund shortages.

Agada argued that the law’s provisions were out of touch with Benue State’s current economic realities and were counterproductive.

Deputy Speaker Danladi instructed the Clerk, Bernard Nule, to read the bill for the second time and referred it to the House Standing Committee on Appointments, Public Services, and Pension Matters for further review.

Brain Drain Impacts Nigerian Hospitals as Medical Professionals Relocate

As Nigeria grapples with healthcare workforce challenges related to universal health coverage, a Sunday PUNCH investigation has uncovered that 281 Nigerian doctors are currently practicing in various African countries. This exodus of medical professionals is taking a toll on Nigeria’s healthcare system as hospitals struggle to retain skilled medical workers.

Data obtained from the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) reveals that Nigerian doctors are actively seeking opportunities in other African nations despite recent warnings from the World Health Organisation (WHO) about Nigeria and 54 other countries facing critical healthcare workforce challenges.

Professor Emem Bassey, the Chairman of the Committee of Chief Medical Directors of Federal Tertiary Hospitals, raised concerns about the increasing poaching of Nigerian medical doctors by African countries such as Sierra Leone and Gambia. These countries are reportedly offering attractive incentives of up to $3,000 to $4,000 to lure Nigerian medical professionals.

The MDCN data shows that the highest number of Nigerian doctors practicing abroad is in Sudan (153 doctors), followed by South Africa (41 doctors), Egypt (17 doctors), Ghana (17 doctors), Uganda (13 doctors), and Gambia (7 doctors). Several other African countries also have Nigerian doctors in their healthcare systems, further depleting Nigeria’s healthcare workforce.

According to the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom, the number of Nigerian-trained doctors practicing in the UK has surged to 11,872. Nigeria ranks third in the list of foreign countries contributing medical professionals to the UK, after India and Pakistan.

Professor Muhammad Muhammad, President of the Medical and Dental Consultants Association of Nigeria, explained that Nigerian doctors practicing abroad often receive higher remuneration and better working conditions than their counterparts in Nigeria. He emphasized that the government needs to take measures to address the root causes of this brain drain, including improving the welfare, working conditions, and security of healthcare workers.

Dr. Emeka Orji, President of the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors, expressed his dismay at the brain drain, highlighting the irony that Nigerian doctors are leaving for African countries offering superior working environments, incentives, and remuneration.

Dr. Benjamin Olowojebutu, Chairman of the Nigerian Medical Association, Lagos State Chapter, echoed the call for the government to address the brain drain issue by increasing the welfare of doctors, enhancing remuneration, and providing special allowances to doctors practicing in rural communities.

Earlier this year, the WHO identified Nigeria and 54 other countries as facing significant healthcare workforce challenges, including a shortage of doctors, nurses, and midwives. These countries were placed on a red list, discouraging active recruitment of healthcare professionals from these nations.

Chairman of the Committee of Chief Medical Directors, Prof. Emem Bassey, emphasized the difficulty of replacing healthcare workers who leave Nigeria, citing the complex process of recruitment approvals and the urgency of addressing critical staff shortages in the healthcare sector.

The ongoing exodus of medical professionals from Nigeria raises concerns about the nation’s ability to meet its healthcare needs and underscores the need for comprehensive measures to retain and support its healthcare workforce.