The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered the final judgment on Friday, July 5, in the matter of the September 22 Gubernatorial election, and the September 27 re-run in Osun State. On September 22, 2018, the collation of results indicated that the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Ademola Adeleke had won the election by a margin of 354 votes, but rather than announce the results, the Returning Officer, relying on the INEC Manual, declared the election inconclusive. INEC subsequently ordered a re-run scheduled for September 27 in seven polling units in four local councils. Ahead of the said re-run, there was so much tension in Osun state and anxiety in other places. It was feared that INEC had colluded with the ruling All Peoples Congress (APC) to rig the election and deny the PDP victory. Members of the APC reached out to Senator Iyiola Omisore whose political stronghold was one of the contested polling units, and whereas he was a member of the PDP, it was assumed that his shift of loyalty to the APC could determine the outcome of the re-run in APC’s favour. 

There were suggestions of court cases to stop the re-run as planned and suggestions that the PDP should boycott and seek an order of court to compel INEC to release the full results of the already conducted election and declare Adeleke as the validly elected winner of the election. As it happened, the re-run took place as scheduled on September 27, 2018. There were allegations of voter intimidation, vote buying, violence at polling units, particularly in PDP strongholds.  Arrests were purportedly made. Local and international elections monitors and observers expressed disappointment. They were of the view that the election fell far short of international best practices. 

INEC didn’t declare the September 27 election inconclusive or flawed. It announced that Gboyega Oyetola of the ruling APC won the election. In less than a week, APC was able to turn the table. Both the PDP and its Gubernatorial candidate in Osun State protested that this was a case of electoral theft aided and abetted by the National Electoral Commission. They immediately went to the State Election Petition Tribunal to seek justice. The Osun election was particularly considered significant, held as it was, just a few months to Nigeria’s general election in Feb/March 2019. It was meant to provide Nigerians with a sense, if not a sign, of what was to come. It was a test of the government’s sincerity and INEC’s level of preparedness for the general elections. 

On March 22, 2019, the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal ruled 2 to 1 that the conduct of the Gubernatorial election did not fulfil the test of substantial compliance with the law and due process, and hence declared Ademola Adeleke as the rightful and valid winner of the election and further nullified the re-run of Sept. 27, 2018. The tribunal also berated INEC for the role that it played in the election. The APC and Gboyega Oyetola, now the incumbent Governor of Osun State promptly appealed the ruling. In May 2019, the Court of Appeal ruled 4-1 against the PDP and Senator Ademola Adeleke. This ruling was based on a technical argument: that the judge who gave the lead judgment at the Tribunal had been absent at the proceedings of the Tribunal on February 6, 2019, when issues of non-compliance were tabled, and could therefore not have been privy to the facts and details of the case. The dissenting Justice, Ita Mbaba, JCA dismissed this as unproven. He argued that to all intents and purposes, Justice Obiora’s name not appearing in the record for that day may have been an omission on the part of the registry. Justice Obiora himself was reported as having claimed that he was indeed present but that he forgot to sign the register. The victory awarded to the appellant by the Court of Appeal was of course unpleasant to the original petitioner. Hence, PDP and its Osun candidate took the matter to the court of final resort, the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 

On July 5, their Lordships gave their ruling, in a split decision, 5 to 2, in favour of the APC gubernatorial candidate, Gboyega Oyetola. This is one ruling of the Supreme Court in recent times that has been received with considerable shock. Judges are men and women of immense wisdom and dignity; it is their responsibility to deliver such judgments that are in keeping with the letter and spirit of the law in a manner that reinforces the value of the law as a tool of social justice, control and modulation. The apex court of the land in particular is not just a court of record, it is a policy court, and hence it is expected that whatever comes from that court carries all the weight of the law.  

Every judgment at whatever level is also necessarily of interest to many groups: the winning litigant, the loser, their lawyers, families, associates, supporters, other lawyers, law students, researchers, the media, government and other stakeholders. This probably explains why the Osun case has generated so much interest. One other reason is the technical excuse that the Court of Appeal gave for awarding the election to Gboyega Oyetola of the APC. It is not the duty of judges to rely on public sentiments for determining cases – their primary focus is the merit of the case, the evidence before them and the objectives of justice. But while this is the principle, judges cannot also pursue justice for its own sake alone. Justice must be done; it must be seen to have been done. The ruling in the Osun case may eventually become a cause celebre for the clear reason that it seems to fail this test. Has justice been done in the eyes of the ordinary man? What does the ordinary man think? 

It seems to me that the ordinary man in this case considers the ruling of the Supreme Court, an anti-climax. To the consternation of many, the Supreme Court Justices, 5-2, affirmed the ruling of the Appeal Court. Appellate judges may be reluctant to upturn the rulings of lower courts especially at the Appeal level except something is demonstrably wrong. But reliance on technicalities has often been seen by both laymen and the learned alike as a way of avoiding justice. A mechanistic application of the law, often disguised strictly as strict adherence to the law, often subverts the objectives of justice, equity and fairness, or limits the scope of the court. This is perhaps why there has been consistent protest over reliance on technicalities even from the Bench itself.  At the 2017 National Energy Workshop for Judges, Walter Onnoghen CJN (as he then was) warned judges against relying too heavily on technicalities, because doing so will affect “public confidence in the judiciary.” In March 2019, President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa at the induction programme for Justices of the Appellate court, chairmen and members of election petition tribunals also warned election petition judges against the “practice of employing undue technicalities”. She even added that any judge found so guilty would be “dealt with”.    

When in the Osun case, the Court of Appeal came up with the technicality of the absence of a judge as the basis for nullifying the decision of the state election petition tribunal, many felt this was case of, to borrow a phrase from Lord Denning, “technicalities beyond belief.” (Lord Denning, What Next In The Law, Oxford, 2011). They looked up to the Supreme Court to correct “the wrong” that Adeleke’s supporters had protested about. More so as questions had been raised about this in the dissenting judgment at the Court of Appeal in the matter. Did the lower court investigate and establish the truth about whether or not Justice Peter Obiora was part of the sitting on February 6, 2019?  Should a litigant bear the burden of punishment for an omission by a judge at the lower court? These questions are pertinent because laws are significantly judge-made. “Judge-craft” is not an easy task but where judges establish precedence that could have implications for similar cases in the future, it may be correct to raise questions and demand clarifications. We may simply have before us in the Osun state case, a situation whereby the dissenting rulings throughout the duration of the matter may be of greater usefulness even if dissenting judgments do not prevail. 

Nonetheless, this is not the first time that the appellate courts of Nigeria will offer a ruling that leaves the ordinary man confused. Judges may insist on legal positivism and their discretionary powers, but there are limits to positivism, I so argue advisedly, as there have been instances where a policy court goes beyond “technicalities” to embrace the option of judicial activism. This was the trend during the golden years of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (with Justices Ayo Irikefe, Chukwudifu Oputa, Kayode Eso, Anthony Anyagolu, Otutu Obaseki, Babatunde Craig, Lawal Uwais, Augustine Nnamani, Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, Modibbo Belgore Nnaemeka-Agu,…).  This was the era of statesmanship, truth-telling and courage on the Bench. It is worrisome that the Supreme Court in reviewing the Osun state case limited itself and leaves the stakeholders no less confused than they are. What is the truth about the September 2018 Gubernatorial election in Osun state? Nobody knows. Even the winners can only rely on technicality as the basis for their victory. The losers also insist that the Supreme Court has not told anybody that Ademola Adeleke did not win. Was INEC right to have declared the election inconclusive? And did the Returning Officer act ultra-vires? Their Lordships are not on record as having addressed this in the lead judgment, not even obiter. 

In a country where there is so much disbelief and mistrust, alienation even, the judiciary cannot afford to lose the people’s trust and respect, or confuse them about its will to act as a force for progress and stability. The judiciary is unequivocally, the last hope of the Nigerian common man. But with regard to the Osun governorship case, what stands out is not that hope but the maturity and sportsmanship of the parties involved. The APC and Governor Gboyega Oyetola have been cautious not to over-jubilate. The PDP has also called for calm. Senator Ademola Adeleke has accepted his fate. This should be the spirit of Nigerian politics, with or without the courts.      

If the drama that overtook Senator Elisha Abbo’s life in the past week had not occurred, he would have been a symbol of the value of the Not-Too-Young-To-Run Movement in Nigeria. At 41, he is the youngest member of the Nigerian Senate. He is much older than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, of the United States House of Representatives, (D-NY, 14^thdistrict) and Senator Josh Hawley, 39 (R-MO) but any young person who won a major election in Nigeria in 2019 is readily a symbol of sorts for young Nigerians who insist that more young persons should be elected and appointed into positions of authority. President Muhammadu Buhari who signed the Not-Too-Young-To-Run Bill into law. He   can legitimately claim it as a major legacy of his administration. 

Elisha Abbo could have been a torch-bearer for the recruitment of more Nigerian youths, until a video-tape surfaced showing him in an Abuja sex toy shop, violently assaulting a nursing mother who had dared to ask him to calm down during an altercation with the owner of the sex shop. The video showed Abbo in an angry mood, hitting a defenceless woman as if he was having a boxing practice. The woman not only ended up in the hospital, Abbo also directed his police orderly to intimidate the woman. Elisha Abbo has since apologized to all Nigerians for behaving badly.  He wants to be forgiven. He has also been advised to apologise to his victim who is asking for protection from further molestation. The police have invited him for questioning with the indication that he may be charged to court. His party, the People’s Democratic Party has condemned his action, even if at the time of the incident, he had not yet been sworn in as a Senator of the Federal Republic. 

We all have a duty to be interested in the character and conduct of those we elect to lead us, be they young,  middle-aged or old. We cannot afford to have in the corridors of power men and women who are broken symbols, with a capacity to cause damage with the power and influence that they wield. But having said that, let me point out that the attempt to politicize the Elisha Abbo’s case is deplorable. He did not slap a nursing mother because of his PDP affiliation as his political opponents have mischievously argued. This is about his own personal failings and not politics. One APC Senator snatched the mace of the Senate in 2017 with the assistance of some intruders into the Red Chamber. The police never made an attempt to arrest or investigate him. That APC Senator has since been rewarded with a position of influence. Another APC senator who eventually switched loyalties once threatened to forcefully impregnate a female Senator and shame her husband. He later joked about her menopausal status. Such verbal violence is as bad as physical violence. In the same Senate, a ranking Senator defended his right to marry a 13-year old girl. In another case in 2004, a male Senator slapped a female Senator. He got away with it. In the House of Representatives, a female lawmaker also walloped the face of a male colleague. APC lawmakers are just as badly behaved as every other irresponsible lawmaker.  

Two incidents in the last week: the rape allegations against COZA Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo and the case of battery and assault against Senator Abbo illustrate the menace of phallic hegemony and the abuse of power and gender relations in Nigeria. But Senator Abbo cannot claim ignorance of the law and should stop hiding under the banner of Christianity and forgiveness. If he was a good Christian, he would have behaved differently. My take: I believe the time has come for the Nigerian government to set up a psychiatry and counselling department in Abuja.  Nobody should occupy a position of value and consequence without going for a psychiatric test and anger management counselling. It is beginning to look like some angry men have seized control of the Nigeria’s 9^thNational Assembly. We should send them to counsellors and the shrink, one by one, just to be sure.  

COZA is the acronym of a church in Abuja, Nigeria, known as the Commonwealth of Zion Assembly. It is one of those Pentecostal churches that dot every street of Nigeria where the Pastors claim to have a direct phone line to God, and are majorly regarded by the congregation as the anointed voice and representatives of God on earth. Pentecostalism in Nigeria is almost synonymous with perfection and anointment, a man only needs to claim that he has been called by God, and that he sees visions and can perform miracles, before you know it, he becomes the leader of multitudes and every day, people take their problems to him, to help them intercede with God and bring miracles into their lives. In a country where poverty is a menace, where uncertainty rules, the present is dark, the past is unreachable, and tomorrow is hellish, religion sells.

What the people do not understand, they hand over to God. They hang their lives on the neck of religion. They seek extra-terrestrial, mystical interpretations for the unknown. Pastors, clerics, and spiritualists of all kinds prosper in Nigeria because they are trusted, and they are patronized by the people with all that they have. Members of the congregation refer to them as Daddy, and their wives as Mummy. In some denominations, people subject themselves to all kinds of denigration and depersonalization in the presence of pastors and their wives. It doesn’t matter that many of these churches are either not registered or that the founder/pastor only a few weeks earlier used to be an unemployed graduate or a wandering, lost, disoriented Nigerian also looking for a way to survive the terror of being Nigerian.

Once he calls the name of God and he quotes the Holy Books and lays claims to Nostradamic distinction, a ready crowd immediately surrounds him; lost, troubled souls who are also in search of meaning, they open doors for him, fawn on him, and grant him the stature and the importance that he seeks. But these men and women of God, many of who wield more influence than the Government of Nigeria, and enjoy a celebrity status far beyond the reach of political figures, are not necessarily the saints that they claim to be. Professor Wole Soyinka in a fictive representation: The Trials of Brother Jero and Jero’s Metamorphosis, long before now offered a prophetic and grippingly realistic description of the double-facedness and the contradictory persona of these so-called men of God. The Halleluyah tradition in Nigeria, equaled on the Islamic side by Jihadist fervor, may have rescued many Nigerians from depression and suicide, to the extent that a maniacal devotion to God provides many a reason for living and becoming, relevance and hope, but it is also, whatever its colour, Christian or Muslim, a ready source of many afflictions in Nigeria.

This is an irony that is often played out, to the consternation of the community. There is a prominent church leader in Nigeria (Rev. King) who is today on the death row. He was accused of turning a woman into a sex slave and eventually being the cause of her death. The spiritual father turned killer. The assumed savior as assassin. The biggest irony is that years after his incarceration, members of the man’s church have refused to disband. They have kept the church going. They believe that their boss is going through an equivalent of “The Last Temptation” and that he will return from death’s door-post. This kind of mad devotion to so-called men of God is one of the biggest problems in Nigeria. Each time the bubble bursts, the people reel in disbelief or they resort to anger. They are shocked to discover that the man they regard as saint is not a saint. They call him daddy but he is worse than an animal. They trust him but he is most undeserving. He is at best a flawed being like every one else. In Nigeria, every man of God who falls rises again elsewhere. Religion in Nigeria is at best a scam, or so it seems, in other words a cover for the Nigerian problem and the lack of commitment to a rational solution. This is the problem that bad Christians and bad Muslims have caused.

I have said all of this to provide a thematic context for the unmasking, the “thingification” and the humiliation of the Senior Pastor of the Commonwealth of Zion Assembly (COZA), Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo in the past few days. It is the biggest story in Nigeria at the moment, having made the front pages of newspapers for two days, and the front page of every online tweet and social media in general as a trending story. Senior Pastor Biodun has been dressed in a robe worse than that of the fictive Brother Jero. He has been accused of rape by Mrs Busola Dakolo, wife of Timi Dakolo, one of the most original voices in Nigerian music. In an original and best-scoop-of-the-yearinterview with Chude Jideonwo of YNaija, a good advertisement for the positive side of social media, Mrs Dakolo disclosed that when she was 17, Pastor Fatoyinbo of COZA raped her.

There is no point repeating the details of the encounter, except to note that some commentators and friends of Pastor Fatoyinbo have tried to dig holes in Mrs Dakolo’s narrative. Why didn’t she put up some resistance? Why didn’t she shout? Why did she allow a second encounter? Why did she keep quiet for so long? Why is she just speaking up now after three kids? Is she seeking fame? The man gave her Krest soft drink and she took it? By the way, don’t be surprised if Krest is suddenly revived- it is the biggest marketing beneficiary of the Fatoyinbo rape saga. And is she playing games? Blackmailing a man of God? What we can hold on to however, is the fact that at the time she was allegedly raped, she was 17 years old, and that in itself makes the event a serious crime. It is unlawful to have carnal knowledge of a minor. The age of consent in Nigeria is 18. Pastor Fatoyinbo who has since issued a statement on the matter insists that he has never raped anyone in his life. He is yet to tell us however whether or not he had carnal knowledge of Busola Dakolo at a time she was a minor. That is the question he is yet to address, his wife, Modele’s spirited, I-stand-by-my-husband defence notwithstanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, rape is a serious felony in Nigeria as it is elsewhere. It is despicable. In Popoola v. State, Muntaka Coomasie JSC (as he then was), described the offence as “heinous and heartless”. Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC added that “it should rank next to capital punishment.” Sections 357 and 358 of the Nigerian Criminal Code prescribes imprisonment for life for the offence of rape. The Penal Code of Northern Nigeria is just as strong on the issue. Whereas there are decided cases which uphold the spirit of the extant law on rape in Nigeria, including Upahar v The State, Okoyomon v. The State, Ezigbo v. The State,reporting rape, proving rape and getting justice for rape is one of the most difficult tasks under Nigeria’s criminal justice system. Date rape, spousal rape and acquaintance rape are often very difficult to prove. To start with, there is the cultural stigma of identifying as a rape victim. Many families would not want their daughter to be identified as a rape victim. Who will marry a girl who has been gang raped or who was defiled by an uncle, or has had an early experience of incestuous rape? Families and victims prefer to cover up and suffer in silence.

When it comes to rape, the Nigerian Police is also useless. One of my favourite skits is that of a comedian (Okey Bakassi?) on the reaction of Nigerian policemen to reported date rape. As a rule, the average Nigerian man does not believe that a married man can rape his wife or girlfriend. Something he bought with his money and sweat? Meanwhile, the extant law is unhelpful. To prove rape in a Nigerian court, you must provide evidence. There must be witnesses and “the fact of penetration” beyond the “labia majora” must be proved. This doesn’t make sense. No adult woman will submit herself to the indignity of medical proof that is suggested. And do criminals invite witnesses to the scene of crime? The law defines rape as “Unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force, or by means of intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm…”. The law criminalizes male-female relationship. Is it possible for a woman to rape a man? How about lesbian rape? Or gay rape? How about violence in marital sexual relations? Curiously, advocacy on the need to revise the laws on rape and sexual assault in Nigeria has met, consistently with a brick wall.

It is perhaps partly for these reasons that Busola Dakolo’s delay in crying out is understandable and also why her revelations may revive the debate on a necessary review of the extant laws and procedures on rape in Nigeria. Her public outcry has already spawned a #ChurchToo movement in Nigeria, almost exactly after the fashion of the #MeToo movement in the United States. On Sunday, a group of aggrieved Nigerians stormed the Abuja headquarters of the COZA church. They set up barricades and a sit-in. They asked that Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo should be prosecuted. Their minimum demand was that he should step down as Senior Pastor of the Church. The Pastor was protected we are told, by a contingent of church members, the police and the military. Senior Pastor Fatoyinbo reportedly got to the church late and everything was hush-hush, rush-rush on Sunday. His wife took the microphone and defended her husband. The Pastor also defended himself, even if he didn’t offer an apology or an explanation on the relationship between him and the lady in question. He postponed a seven-day church programme and we are told he has stepped aside as Senior Pastor.

This same Pastor was accused of sexual harassment and deceitful sexual encounter in 2013. He responded in the same manner then. He stepped aside briefly and allowed the dust to settle, and he stepped back and life continued. In the saner societies that Nigerians love to reference and emulate, the COZA church would have been empty last Sunday or this Sunday perhaps. But no, that won’t happen. Religion in Nigeria is a special form of mass hypnotism. Most Nigerians worship the cleric, not God. I suspect that Pastor Fatoyinbo and his fans believe that this too will pass. They will find a passage in the Bible to justify it and that will be the end of the matter, with no effect whatsoever on the balance sheet of the COZA enterprise.

As it is, if Busola Dakolo is looking for justice, she won’t get it. The security agencies won’t arrest Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo. They will rather protect him as they did on Sunday. Even if they investigate him, nothing will come out of it. There will be no legal trial. Forget it, Pastor Biodun won’t sue anybody. In any case, Busola Dakolo herself unwittingly revealed that the evidence was destroyed shortly after the felony was committed and note this: there are no witnesses. But Mrs Dakolo has the moral high ground. By speaking out, she has put the issue of rape back on the front burner in Nigeria. Our country is known for its toleration of child abuse, human rights violations and the depersonalization of vulnerable persons. Adults rape minors including babies, kidnapping is rife, women are treated as objects. Before now, the big scandal had been about sex-for-marks in our higher institutions, but now, there are more stories about incestuous rape, gang rape and date rape, and rape in the church.

Ms. Dakolo may not get justice but she may have started a revolution. Since her public outcry, more Nigerian women have come forward to tell harrowing stories of rape. All of a sudden, it is no longer a thing of shame for a known Nigerian woman to talk about having been raped. My only concern here is that everything in Nigeria tends to become an opportunistic industry. Not all the stories that are now being told may be true; some copy-cats will use the opportunity to malign prominent persons, and seek to share a part of the limelight. Besides, the story is incomplete: how about men who were raped by women in positions of power, authority and influence? Will they also tell?

However, this is what the Busola Dakolo story is all about: power relations, sexual negotiation, misogyny, the abuse of privilege and the moral stature of religious leaders. This is not just about Senior Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo and his private life, it should be a wake up call for the body of Christ in Nigeria, that is the Church. Whatever may be the denomination, the Church exercises such powers over the mind of the congregation that should not be abused. The Catholic Church understands this dilemma better than any other congregation, given the many reported cases of abuse of the cassock by Catholic priests across the world. Pentecostal pastors offer themselves as some kind of modernist alternative, but to see them behaving badly diminishes the very idea of the church itself.

In the end, families and individuals must learn the right lessons and take appropriate steps to protect themselves. Clerics of whatever hue are human beings too. There are thieves, rapists, fraudsters, con-artists and all sorts of criminals among them, just as there are good ones too. It is true: the garment does not make a monk. The fact that a man can quote passages of the Holy Book, without missing a line, does not make him Holy. Pastors claim that they know the mind of God, and that he speaks to them and directs them. Does anyone really know the mind of God? What exactly is the mind of God? What we call anointing is at best a myth, and the biggest excuse for the formation of a cult of personality. Busola Dakolo and YNaija have helped to shape a critical aspect of the Nigerian conversation. Both parties deserve our commendation for their courage. But until concrete evidence surfaces, Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo can comfortably insist on his innocence.

Senator Ahmed Lawan is the incumbent Senate President of Nigeria, having won the election into that office, 79-28, beating his rival, Senator Ali Ndume of the same ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Lawan was the anointed candidate of his party, the APC, but he worked hard to negotiate with and secure the support of other members of the Senate across party lines. He secured a bi-partisan victory in such a convincing manner that has caused turmoil in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Nigeria’s main opposition party.

The PDP has since ordered an investigation into how its National Assembly members voted contrary to the party’s directives. The PDP must pursue that course with extreme caution in order not to shoot itself in the foot. But what has Ahmed Lawan done with his victory and what has been the fall-outs?

Immediately after his declaration and inauguration as Senate President of the 9th National Assembly on June 11, he and his equally “anointed” Deputy, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege went straight to the Aso Rock Presidential Villa to pay homage to President Muhammadu Buhari. When they got there, Ovie Omo-Agege whose role in the 8th National Assembly was controversial, knelt down before the President as if he was in front of a demi-god. In Africa, some Presidents consolidate power so much in their persons, that people actually worship them. Ovie-Agege knelt down; Nigerians cried out in criticism.

I didn’t join that needless outcry, because from the looks on Omo-Agege’s face, he came across like the kind of guy who would even have preferred to prostrate before the President, and if he was asked to jump up in the air, he would gladly have done so. It is part of African culture to pay respects to elders, but a “Kabiyesi syndrome” as poet laureate Niyi Osundare once put it, persists in Nigerian politics. Men and women of power are treated like monarchs and there is never a short supply of acolytes, relying on culture and custom, curtsying and genuflecting, masking what is in reality, opportunistic sycophancy.

Ahmed Lawan’s first act in office (his urgent and prompt visit to the Presidential Villa) became an issue because he had promised that he would not run a rubber-stamp Senate, and that the 9th National Assembly (the Senate President is the Chairman of the National Assembly) under his watch, while seeking a harmonious and qualitative relationship with the Executive arm of government, would act only strictly in the interest of the Nigerian people and in line with the legislature’s Constitutional mandate.

Rushing off to go and “kiss” the President’s feet, just hours after being inaugurated didn’t send the right signals to an observant public. The newly elected Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives would soon follow in tow, but those ones at least allowed one or two days to pass. The dynamics of power in African democracies more or less subordinates one arm of government to the other, structurally and unjustifiably, but the sad part is how those who should ensure the integrity of spaces wilfully violate them.

Shortly after President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration was inaugurated for a second term on May 29, 2019, his first assignment in office was to jet off to Saudi Arabia for a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Barely 10 days before then, he was shown observing the Umrah (lesser hajj) in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The incumbent Senate President, Ahmed Lawan and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila have both followed in the President’s footsteps, visiting Saudi Arabia, either before or after their emergence as heads of the National Assembly.

The number of trips that have been made to Saudi Arabia by the Nigerian ruling elite, before, during and after the 2019 general elections deserves an independent and rigorous study of its own for all its connotations. These trips are not limited to religious observances, there have been reports of interactions with Saudi officials. Even Christian officials working for the Buhari administration have had to visit Saudi Arabia, decked in traditional Saudi garbs.

For more than the reasons of spiritual pilgrimage, Saudi Arabia has always been Nigeria’s strategic partner, but the kind of Saudi Arabian sycophancy that the current government has been demonstrating is the most bizarre that I have seen. Our embassy in Saudi Arabia must be the busiest mission that we have. Were Saudi Arabia to allow dual citizenship, many of our political leaders would have since joined the queue to beg for Saudi citizenship. For now, they have just turned it into their second London and they go and return, and do not fail to flaunt the trips in our face.

But whereas, we may cite the aforementioned illustrations as evidence of Senator Ahmed Lawan’s attempts to be like the boss, he eventually took a significant step to assert his independence and demonstrate that he has a mind of his own. The fact that he abandoned that attempt in the face of harassment and intimidation, indeed his cowardice in the face of pressure, and how that could well be a sad indication of what to expect, is the bigger point of this commentary. Six days ago, the Senate President Ahmed Lawan, unlike President Buhari, “hit the ground running” by announcing the appointment of his aides. President Buhari is yet to appoint any personal or official aides, his former aides continue to work for him by conduct in utter violation of Sections 151 and 171 of the Constitution.

Lawan took the right step of announcing his aides. He retained three media aides who worked with his predecessor, Senator Bukola Saraki – Senate President of the 8th National Assembly. These are Mohammed Isa, Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Olu Onemola, Special Assistant on New Media, and Tope Brown, Special Legislative Assistant on Photography. He retained another Saraki aide: Dr. Betty Okoroh. He further announced Dr. Festus Adedayo, former Special Adviser Media to former Governor Chimaroke Nnamani (Enugu State) and Senator Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo State), and a journalist with the Nigerian Tribune newspapers as his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity.

By retaining former aides of Senator Bukola Saraki, a former Senate President who had been declared persona non grata by the Presidency and the ruling APC, Lawan was obviously looking at continuity. He didn’t want to start his career as Senate President on a tabula rasa. It helps to have in place persons with institutional memory who may know where all the corpses in the office are buried.

Part of the problem we have in the governance process in Nigeria is that every new person who assumes an office believes that the first thing to do is to get rid of staff who may have worked with the predecessor and who may still be loyal to that predecessor. Lawan took the moral high ground. He showed confidence by re-appointing some of the persons who worked with Bukola Saraki. Then, he chose as the head of his media team, a man who has been very critical of the Buhari administration and even of him. By Adedayo’s account himself, Lawan said he was looking for a man who could get the job done. Certainly, Festus Adedayo has the experience and the skills to deliver on the job. When I was approached about two years ago to provide a shortlist of persons who could act as spokesperson for a government agency, he was one of the top favourites on the short list that I submitted. Festus Adedayo has the know-how, the intellectual heft, the street wisdom, the personality, and the courage to do a job that I consider, in retrospect, the most suicidal job in government.

As things have turned out, Festus Adedayo’s appointment as Special Adviser, Media and Publicity to Senate President Ahmed Lawan became the latter’s first major test. An APC mob crawled out of the woods to demand that this was an unacceptable choice. Adedayo was accused of having written a series of anti-Buhari, anti-Lawan, and anti-APC articles in the Nigerian Tribune where he runs a column titled “Flickers” and also works as an editorial board member.

Social media herdsmen pursuing this line of argument created a #sackFestusAdedayo handle online and within 24 hours they were in everyone’s face urging that Festus Adedayo does not deserve to get such a high office in a government that he had consistently disparaged and under a President for whom he seems to have no respect. Passages from Festus Adedayo’s writings were copied, pasted and distributed. He was accused of trying to reap where he did not sow. Those who claimed they worked to ensure APC’s victory and Ahmed Lawan’s emergence as Senate President protested that they had been insulted and marginalized.

They talked about the soup that they had prepared and now that the food was ready, it would be most unfair to invite an enemy to the table. Festus Adedayo was accused of having no shame, to have done so much damage condemning a party and a government, and to have the temerity to attend an interview for a job under the same government and believe that he could be allowed to take the job. He was labelled an enemy and an unprincipled person.

He was asked to go and get a job from the PDP. “You can’t eat where you did not help to prepare the food”, they told him! The way the APC mob was talking about “soup”, “food”, and “juicy positions”, an outsider following the entire saga would think the Nigerian political arena is one big kitchen where Nigerians fight over food, soup and fruit juice, rather than a democracy. There was so much talk about whose stomach should consume the food that the APC had prepared in Ahmed Lawan’s kitchen. We were even told that the APC has seasoned media managers who have worked and suffered and now that it is dinner-time, outsiders should be kept out.

In less than 48 hours, there was a press statement relieving Festus Adedayo of his appointment. This must be one of the shortest-lived appointments in Nigeria since 1999. Senator Lawan acted too prematurely and cowardly. He succumbed to blackmail. He may have been intimidated by the fact that the wife of the President, Aisha Buhari also waded into the matter with a widely circulated tweet, but he should have restrained himself from rushing to judgement. He interviewed Festus Adedayo. He didn’t just appoint him without a prior check.

To sack him so hurriedly just because of the harassment of the APC mob shows cowardice, lack of principles, and an abject moral stature. He says he will not be a rubber stamp Senate President. He has just rubber stamped the wish of the APC herdsmen on social media. So, if tomorrow an opposition candidate opposes an Executive motion on the floor of the Senate, and we have the APC Senate gang screaming, what would he do? A man who cannot stand by his own choice and principles is a weakling whose politics cannot be trusted.

Senator Ahmed Lawan, who was brought to office on a bi-partisan basis must show greater confidence going forward. He must be the Senate President of all Nigerians not a Senate President that shakes and dithers when either the wife of the President or a frustrated APC mob sneezes. I have been told by a guest on The Morning Show – which I co-anchor on Arise News, Channel 416 on DSTV – (I will not mention the guest’s name because we intend to invite him again) that it would have been better if Festus Adedayo did not accept the appointment in the first place, and that persons in the public place should always stand by their own beliefs and not seek to benefit wherever there is food to be served. Festus Adedayo has already defended himself in characteristically sturdy and lyrical prose. But I told the fellow I hope the professional political class will also abide by the moral code that he prescribes. He merely repeated his position.

It seems to me, overall, that the ruling APC is mismanaging its success by adopting in most cases a winner-takes-it-all attitude, sheer intolerance, post-election and the needless dictatorship of the APC Headquarters. The only exception to this rule is probably the Dapo Abiodun administration in Ogun State where after the election, all stakeholders have been invited to be part of an inclusive process instituted by Governor Abiodun.

I am told, however, that he is also under pressure from the APC to keep “enemies” away from the “kitchen.” The situation is worse in Edo and Bauchi states where infantile politics, and ego-conflict are on full display over the inauguration of the State Houses of Assembly and the election of principal officers. The APC must be reminded that Nigeria belongs to all of us whatever creed we subscribe to. The prevalent Manichean interpretation of power: them vs. us; winners vs. losers belongs to the age of Thomas Hobbes. There was a time after the 2019 general elections that President Muhammadu Buhari talked about inclusion – but there has been nothing inclusive so far since he assumed office for a second time. It is dangerous that other levels of government are beginning to emulate and mutate the arrogance of the APC.

When there is inclusion, the advantage is a no-brainer: when a so-called enemy is brought into the fold, he automatically becomes a friend, because clearly, there is no way a Festus Adedayo as spokesperson for Ahmed Lawan would have continued to criticize and condemn either Lawan’s Senate Presidency or the Federal Government. Nobody saw that or they thought it didn’t matter.

Alimentary politics blocks vision and reason. Perhaps seeing how Adedayo has been treated, Olu Onemola, who used to work for Saraki, has rejected his re-appointment by Lawan. This is not a good sign- Lawan should note that. I urge Senator Ahmed Lawan to avoid this kind of situation in the future. Critics are not destroyers. They are also part of the national common project. Nobody should be subjected to an apartheid treatment or the politics of segregation just because they express a different opinion. Central to all of this is the failure to understand the difference between the job of a journalist and the job description of a spokesperson. I reserve the commentary on that subject for another occasion.

I wrote a piece recently (ThisDay, May 28) in which I referred to Mrs Aisha Buhari, the wife of the Nigerian President. I argued that she is not “joking” and that with her husband being elected for a second term in office, Nigerians should watch out for her. That piece attracted an offensive rejoinder in at least one newspaper. The person who tried to respond to me spent the whole time ignoring the issues and called me names. It is very difficult, in this business, to join issues with quacks who cannot even write a successful sentence and those who publish them. 

I am actually a fan of Mrs Aisha Buhari, the wife of President Muhammadu Buhari. She is beautiful, classy, smart and assertive. In four years, she has shown that she cannot be silenced, and that her husband cannot confine her to the kitchen or “the other room”. She has proven that her husband spoke wrongly about the other room when he visited a non-existent “West Germany”.  She has established that she belongs to the present, and in that wise, she has not disappointed with her contemporaneity, cosmopolitanism and politics. She has turned “pillow talk” into a tool of power. She has shown that “the other room” can be a place of truth.” She has had her public moments of doubt but we can all see that she is enjoying the place where she is. She is strong and courageous.     

The other day, she reportedly made a statement that nobody should refer to her henceforth as “wife of the President” but as “First Lady of Nigeria.”  She pointed out that in 2015, she had opted for the title of “wife of the President” out of her own volition but she soon discovered that many Nigerians are confused about who the real First Lady is, because the wives of state Governors also use the title of “First Lady.” Mrs. Buhari has a point but she also misplaced the point.

As Presidential spokesman of Nigeria, I used to tell Commissioners of Information and Chief Press Secretaries in the states who referred to Governors’ residences as State Houses that there is only one State House in Nigeria -  the Aso Rock Presidential Villa in Abuja. Governors live in Government Houses. Only the President lives in State House!  The difference is that while one is a matter of protocol, the other, Mrs Buhari’s case, is controversial. The Office of the First Lady of Nigeria is unknown to the Nigerian Constitution. It is an American convention which we have inherited and promoted. Mrs Buhari may very well be asserting herself afresh to remind us that she is the First Lady of the “other room”. But what do I know – an innocent newspaper columnist spinning tales! As for Mrs. Buhari, she is actually wife of the President in truth!.     

Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as part of its review of the 2019 General elections in the country is reportedly working on a proposal for the alteration of the 1999 Constitution as amended to enable it reduce the number of political parties in the country. A total of 91 political parties participated in the 2019 general elections, the highest number ever. There were 71 Presidential candidates. The ballot paper was quite long. Festus Okoye the INEC Commissioner in charge of information and voter education says this created a “logistics nightmare,”, and “confused many voters, particularly the less educated during the election.”  INEC wants the Constitution amended to enable it register and deregister parties that are at best “mere platforms for political jobbers.”  

Indeed, many Nigerians have expressed concern about the length of the ballot paper used for the February 23 and March 9 general elections in Nigeria.  You necessarily had to search for the party logos, despite the fact that the logos were arranged alphabetically. If INEC says many voters particularly the uneducated were confused, we can only assume that INEC as the umpire is giving this information based on the feedback that it got. The truth of the matter is that many of the 91 political parties were unknown. Most of them were registered at the last minute and some of them in fact were known only by the name of the founder/chairman. The emergence of many political parties may give the impression of a flourishing multi-party democracy but when these political parties are no better than special purpose vehicles or briefcase parties to promote a personality or to raise funds and launder money, then indeed, there should be cause for concern. But where should INEC draw the line?  

This question is pertinent in the light of constitutional provisions in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution which guarantee the freedoms of association, assembly, expression and belief, key issues at the heart of the political party formation process. Those who argue that the more political parties we have, the better also often rely on the Supreme Court 2002 judgement in Gani Fawehinmi vs INEC where the court held that the right of association is a fundamental human right. Chief Gani Fawehinmi whose contributions to the development of our jurisprudence through advocacy and litigation remains evergreen had gone to court to challenge the electoral commission’s refusal to register the National Conscience Party (NCP). The Supreme Court dismissed 12 of the 13 guidelines used by INEC for party registration as “unconstitutional.” 

However, a political party is a creation of law, and it must be remarked that no right is absolute. Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution refers. Political parties are registered based on stipulated rules and guidelines, and where those provisions spelt out in the relevant statutes are not met, such parties do not live up to the billing of being regarded as political parties. This much was demonstrated in August 2011 when the then INEC, with Professor Attahiru Jega as Chair, de-registered six political parties for having failed to participate in the April 2011 elections. The parties failed to field even a candidate! They are: the Democratic Alternative (DA), National Action Council (NAC); National Democratic Liberty Party (NDLP); Masses Movement of Nigeria (MMN); Nigeria Elements Progressive Party (NEPP); and National Unity Party (NUP). INEC relied on Section 78(7) of the Electoral Act 2010.  In the 2011 election, there were 63 political parties. In 2019, the number had increased to 91!. As Nigeria prepares for the 2023 general elections, there can be no doubt that more political parties would emerge. But is the proliferation of political parties good for our democracy? Does INEC need to have the constitution altered to be able to de-register political parties? 

I think not. It will be recalled that in March 2019, Femi Falana, SAN had expressed an opinion on this matter, and if I may be permitted to quote Falana’s persuasive argument in a piece titled “INEC’s power to deregister political parties” , his whole point is that the law already grants INEC the powers to de-register political parties. He correctly referred to the May 2017 amendment to the 1999 Constitution, to wit, the Fourth alteration to the Constitution, Section 225 thereof,  wherein it is stated that INEC is empowered to de-register political parties on the following grounds: “(a) a breach of any of the requirements for registration; (b) failure to win at least 25 per cent of votes cast in: (i) one state of the Federation in a presidential election; or (ii) one local government of a state in a governorship election; (c) failure to win at least (i) one ward in the chairmanship election; (ii) one seat in the national or state House of Assembly election; or (iii) one seat in the councillorship election.” This particular alteration having been signed into law, albeit President Buhari assented to the fourth alterations piecemeal, (he withheld assent on five issues), represents the true position of the Constitution. INEC therefore needs not seek any further alterations or amendments to the Constitution. Falana has argued, and he is right that if the law is applied, there would be fewer than 10 political parties standing. 

What remains is for INEC to apply the law. But I must add a caveat here: the de-registration of political parties must not end up as an act of vendetta, witch-hunt or intimidation. Any political party that is de-registered on the basis of performance or violation of the law, has every right to re-apply for registration and should the same political party meet the statutory conditions, it should be registered afresh. The rules must be upheld but at the same time, constitutional rights must be respected. Where does that leave us? We are left with the need for INEC as the regulatory body doing everything possible to respect the rules and thereby deepen the electoral landscape. 

Nigeria’s political party system must not be allowed to become a scam, the political equivalent of the notorious 419. I am reliably told that the biggest lottery in Nigeria today, is the formation of a political party. The political parties are also fast becoming like churches. Anybody can set up a political party, and use it to raise funds: you can sell tickets to aspiring candidates who need a platform, you can raise funds online, all you need to do is to print a few posters and make as much noise as possible. You can even at the last moment, step down and declare support for a richer party and collect a ransom! This may sound cynical but that is precisely what I understand is going on in the real sector of Nigeria’s political party system. It is unjustifiable and it must not be sustained. Once upon a time in Nigeria, we had political parties that were ideas-driven. In the First and Second Republics, political leaders tried to push ideas. Political leaders were identified with particular visions. Today, many of our political leaders know next to nothing about anything. The naked desperation for power is all that we see on display. This is shameful in a country that produced Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Ernest Ikoli, SLA Akintola, Adegoke Adelabu, Aminu Kano, Ibrahim Waziri, Nwafor Orizu, Mbonu Ojike, Anthony Enahoro, Kenneth Mbadiwe. Where are the visionaries of today? We are unfortunately in the age of Godfathers. Men who fight over positions, and who play God over the fortunes of their compatriots and our country. We are in the season of mediocrity, incompetence, and opportunism. Professor Pat Utomi even puts it better. He says “criminals” have taken over Nigeria.

INEC has a lot more to worry about, beyond the size of the ballot paper and the number of registered political parties. I will return to that shortly. In the Presidential and legislative elections conducted on April 17, 2019 in Indonesia, the ballot paper was so large, it could serve as a wrapper. Each voter had five ballot papers! But that is because for the first time, Indonesia conducted its Presidential and legislative elections, federal and local, on the same day to save cost. There were 18 political parties on the ballot, much fewer than ours, 190 million voters, and over 240, 000 candidates.  Indonesia managed to conduct an election that was considered free and fair, with incumbent President Joko Widodo (a.ka. Jokowi) winning with over 55% of total votes cast. I am not an admirer of President Widodo. I think he, like Marie Le Pen (France) and Boris Johnson (UK) is too Trumpian, but the negative influence that US President Donald Trump has exerted on the balance of geo-politics and the character of global politics, is a subject for another day. India also held general elections this year between April 11 to May 19. It was an election in seven phases, 900 million voters, and 67% turn out. Incumbent President Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) recorded what you could call a landslide victory. 

The election was actually a referendum on Modi’s leadership even if I consider his propaganda, presidential style campaign approach and his partisanship a bit too much for India. But whereas we have seen incumbents in many of the elections this year holding on by hook or crook to power (a notable exception is Ukraine), I believe that there are lessons that Nigeria’s INEC can learn from other jurisdictions about institutional capacity and processes. The review that INEC seems to be ready to embark upon must take a holistic view of what has happened this year in other jurisdictions. What lessons can we learn?   

I add to that the fact that there are some urgent issues arising from the 2019 general election in Nigeria that will require special attention.  Section 225 of the 1999 Constitution is effusive about the “finances of political parties”. Section 226 insists on “annual report of finances” but as we know, every election in Nigeria is over-monetized. Those who have the deepest pockets buy the votes and short-change Nigerians. There were stories of bullion vans being moved around during the 2019 general elections. INEC has been very quiet about that. Who are the owners of the bullion vans? Who used bullion vans to buy votes? Section 227 of the 1999 Constitution is very eloquent about objection to the use of “physical force or coercion in promoting any political objective or interest” Where was INEC? The 2019 general elections in Nigeria raised many questions about security, campaign finance and the integrity of the democratic process. It is good news, absolutely good news, however, that INEC under Professor Yakubu Mahmoud is now showing a willingness to listen and to make amends and respond to the urgent need to deepen Nigeria’s electoral process. 

I commend that and I note in particular, INEC’s response to the report by the European Union Electoral Observer Mission. The EUEOM came up with 30 recommendations. Both INEC and the Presidency have said they would pay careful attention to the recommendations. This is a laudable departure from the needless arrogance and contempt with which the Buhari government habitually attends to criticisms. One more observation here: INEC says it did not use but only experimented with an electronic server during the 2019 elections. In the 21^st century, that sounds asinine, like 14^thcentury stuff. All things being equal, President Buhari has one more general election to conduct: the 2023 general elections.  He can either turn it into a legacy event, or a source of compounded disgrace. The choice is his to make

It is ironic that it had to take a member of the military establishment now turned democrat, that is General, now President Muhammadu Buhari for June 12 to be accorded its pride of place in the socio-political calendar of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Before now, the recognition/celebration of June 12 as a watershed in Nigerian history had been observed majorly by the states of the South West of Nigeria, thus making its symbolism and significance a restricted and ethnic referent. But that has changed, thanks to President Buhari. His decision to declare June 12 a national holiday, his award of a post-humous honour of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) to Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola and the subsequent amendment of the Public Holidays Act to accommodate June 12 as a Federal holiday is a welcome development. President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) had pointedly ignored all entreaties for his administration to take the same step. 

President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007 – 2010) did not address the June 12 issue. President Goodluck Jonathan (2010 -2015) had taken steps to immortalize MKO Abiola when he decided to name the University of Lagos after the late icon of democracy, but the staff, students and the alumni of the University rejected this, as they insisted that the name University of Lagos must not be changed. The Jonathan administration would later recognize Chief MKO Abiola as one of the major Nigerians of the 20^thcentury. That administration also considered giving Chief MKO Abiola a post-humous national award, but the then President was advised against doing so on the grounds that national honours in Nigeria are never given post-humously. Obviously, the controversy over the re-naming of the University of Lagos was so overwhelming, President Jonathan chose to listen to the Justice Alfa Belgore-led committee on national honours. 

Whereas all other Presidents before him failed to make a statement with June 12, President Muhammadu Buhari has now chosen to do so. Tomorrow, all Nigerians will observe June 12 as a national holiday. It will be the first time that this will happen. This should lay to rest all the conspiracies and the revisionism involved in the attempt to reduce June 12 to a narrow, ethnic event, which it is not. The recognition of June 12 as a special national event would be one of those developments for which President Buhari will be positively remembered. It is again ironic that 26 years after, it took another member of the military elite to correct the problem caused by the military. It has taken President Buhari to correct the error committed by General Ibrahim Babangida and his group on June 23, 1993 when they chose to annul the Presidential election held in Nigeria on June 12, 1993. That unwise decision became General Babangida’s Achillee’s heel, and the ugly thing around his neck. 

General Babangida or IBB as he is fondly known, could have ended up as one of Nigeria’s greats, given the performance of his government, but what is now remembered as his legacy, despite the best efforts of his biographers and PR managers, is that singular negative act, his violation of the people’s sovereignty.  President Buhari is now being lauded for the courageous manner in which he has taken Nigeria beyond the denial and conspiracy foisted on the people by both the military and a segment of the professional political class. We look forward to what President Muhammadu Buhari would say to Nigerians and the international community, tomorrow, June 12. His speech writers have a good opportunity to put words in his mouth that can reverberate like the claps of thunder. They must not waste that opportunity with their sleepy prose. President Buhari should have a word for those who have kept this country down by perpetually denying the truth and turning back the hands of the country’s clock. He should take credit appropriately for the wise decision that he has taken on the matter of June 12. 

I remember June 12, 1993, as clearly as if it happened only yesterday. On that day, Nigerians trooped out en masse to make a choice between the Presidential candidates of two political parties, Bashorun MKO Abiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC). General Ibrahim Babangida was military President, ruling the country with his Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and finally getting to the final stage of a slow-moving democratic transition programme. By 1993, Nigerians were already tired of military rule and particularly of the Babangida government which seemed to have mastered the art of deception. 

The people wanted the military out of the way, to allow a return to civilian rule, which had been truncated by the military at regular intervals since independence in 1960. On that day, Nigerians voted massively for the Social Democratic Party and its candidate, Bashorun MKO Abiola (8, 341, 309 million votes – 58.36%). The NRC candidate, Bashir Tofa came second (5, 952, 087 million votes – 41.64%). This was an election in which neither religion nor ethnicity – two major dividing factors in Nigeria was an issue. MKO Abiola, a Southerner got as much support in the North as he did in the South, even beating his rival, Bashir Tofa in his home state of Kano. The National Electoral Commission (NEC) was headed by political science Professor, Humphrey Nwosu. As the results were collated, it was clear that MKO Abiola (SDP) was leading in 19 states, with Bashir Tofa (NRC) winning in 11 states. On June 16 however, NEC announced that it would no longer announce the results “until further notice”.  Civil society and pro-democracy protesters objected to this. It had been a free and fair election, the most peaceful that Nigeria had ever known. On June 23, 1993, the Babangida government annulled the election and suspended the Electoral Commission. The NEC Chairman, Humphrey Nwosu went underground and became incommunicado. Bashorun MKO Abiola claimed victory. The people demanded that their will as expressed on June 12, 1993 should be respected and that the results of the election should be declared. 

The refusal of the military establishment brought it into direct collision with the people and the international community. June 12 became a catalyst for much that would happen to Nigeria. The crisis escalated so quickly,  General Ibrahim Babangida known then as the “evil genius” had to “step aside” as President of Nigeria. He put in place as he left, an Interim National Government (ING) led by UAC chief, Ernest Shonekan with General Sani Abacha as Defence Chief. That ING survived for only 83 days. General Sani Abacha, a veteran of military coups in Nigeria, pushed aside the ING and its Head and proclaimed himself Head of State. To put it as it was, hell broke loose. Civil society became tempestuous. 

Concerned Professionals, Concerned Democrats, Progressives, voices of reason in Nigeria across all divides, the church, market women, every one with a voice, took to the streets to say: “Never Again to military rule.” The general consensus was that the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election was after all a subterfuge by the military to remain in power and that IBB had played a “Maradona” game against Nigerians. “On June 12 we stand”, the people proclaimed and they took to the barricades. The diplomatic community even joined the protests, with the likes of US Ambassador Walter Carrington, leading the charge on the diplomatic front.  The Abacha government was bound to fail. It died a-borning. It descended on Nigeria’s civil society and the progressive camp, and as Nigeria began to witness the worst form of dictatorship since 1960, the people fought back. And Abacha fought back. Not even newly born babies were spared. Journalists were special targets: those who were not hauled into prison, were made to flee abroad, or go underground. Those were the days of guerilla journalism in Nigeria. The people at home fought, those abroad set up a short wave radio, Radio Kudirat which reported Abacha to the world. In due course, Nigeria became a pariah nation. 

Three major events made this happen: the first is the declaration by Chief MKO Abiola of his due right to the mandate that Nigerians gave him on June 12, 1993. On June 11, 1994, Chief MKO Abiola in the Epetedo area of Lagos declared himself the democratically elected President of Nigeria. That speech is now known as the Epetedo Declaration. It should be widely circulated tomorrow, June 12 and on every June 12 henceforth, for it has become one of the landmark speeches in the mapping of Nigerian history, and the trajectory of our country’s democratic evolution. I am tempted to quote from that eminently quotable speech but I recall that it was in that speech that the phrase “Enough is Enough” was first pronounced as a revolutionary call to action. Abiola said: “Today, I join you all in saying Enough is Enough! We have endured 24 years of military rule in our 34 years of independence.…Enough of military rule…” And he went on and on.…

The Epetedo Declaration became another catalyst for the Nigerian Spring! It was a call to action. The people responded. Abiola was arrested by the Abacha junta but the genie had left the bottle. The people of Nigeria heard Abiola: “Enough is Enough” and they too responded: “Never Again to military rule”. Second event: On November 10, 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa, a writer and internationally renowned environmental rights activist was hanged by the Abacha administration. Third event: On June 9, 1996, Abiola’s wife, Kudirat was assassinated by Abacha’s killer squad. There were attempts on the lives of key pro-democracy activists as well including Chief Alfred Rewane who was murdered, and Chief Abraham Adesanya who survived. Journalists were murdered. It was as if at the Epetedo Declaration,  Abiola had placed a curse on General Abacha. Nigeria suffered but the people wanted an end to it all. On June 8, 1998, General Sani Abacha died. There was dancing in the streets. But as it happened, Chief Abiola also died, in very suspicious circumstances, while still in detention, on July 7, 1998. By then, General Abdusalami Abubakar had succeeded General Abacha as military Head of State. Nigerians still didn’t give up. They wanted democracy. They wanted to be liberated from the shackles of military autocracy.  On May 29, 1999, their will prevailed. General Olusegun Obasanjo who had also been framed and jailed by the Abacha government became Nigeria’s civilian president after all the turmoil.    

It is sad that those who have benefitted most from the June 12 debacle have been the most desperate in denying the value and symbolism of that date and what happened therein. June 12 was a turning point for Nigeria as the foregoing narrative indicates, and it became, in its trajectory, the catalyst for Nigeria’s second liberation, that is liberation from internal colonialists, but as things stand 26 years later, we may still need to construct a strategy for a third liberation: liberation from the rent collectors who seem to have resolved that Nigeria’s progress is a threat to their own interests. By declaring June 12 a national public holiday, President Buhari has given us all an opportunity to reflect, to think and to remember. In a country where memory is short, people don’t like to think, and state institutions are constructed to erase memory, the teaching of history was even at a point “outlawed”, now it is taught as an optional subject, it is a good thing that President Buhari in making June 12 a national holiday has given us all an opportunity to do what we do not like to do in this country: to think, reflect and remember.  June 12 is an idea that cannot be ignored. It is about national unity. On that day in 1993, we saw that it is possible for Nigerians, “though tongue and tribe may differ” to unite around an idea. June 12 is a philosophy, a way of thinking by a people who resolved at a critical moment in their lives to move forward. The evil agents in the military tried to block that and suppress the people’s sovereignty, but tomorrow, the point shall be made that the truth is indestructible! We hope that there will be celebration in every state of the Federation.

The story of June 12 has inspired a bibliography that should be promoted. Indeed, apart from the civil war, it is probably the most dramatic and telling incident in post-colonial Nigeria. I have been privileged to read many of the books, which I recommend to the reading public. They include, not necessarily in any order of importance, Abraham Oshoko,June12: The Struggle for Power in Nigeria, Abraham Oshoko,June 12: The Annulment; Frank Kokori,The Struggle for June 12,Omo Omoruyi,The Tale of June 12: The Betrayal of the Democratic Rights of Nigerians;Humphrey Nwosu, Laying the Foundations for Nigeria’s Democracy: My Account of June 12, 1993 Presidential election and its annulment;  Wale Oshun,Clapping With One Hand; Wale Oshun,Open Grave; and Wale Oshun, Kiss of Death; Kayode Fayemi,Out of the Shadows: Exile and the Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in Nigeria;Joe Igbokwe, Heroes of Democracy;  and Wole Soyinka,The Open Sore of a Continent. These works represent in varying degrees, the literature of resistance against military rule in Nigeria. 

The revisionists led by General Ibrahim Babangida have tried to rewrite and revise the same story (there would have been a coup if the result was allowed (!), a cabal within the military didn’t want Abiola, it was an unfortunate incident… story…); see:  their narrative is not selling. On June 12 we stand! I have also heard some people express the view that the Buhari government should go a step further and formally announce the results of the June 12, 1993 election and thereafter declare Chief Abiola the rightful winner of that election. I disagree. The June 12, 1993 process having been inchoate and the beneficiary dead, such a declaration will have no probative value. For me, what has been done serves the purpose. It would all have been better though, if June 12 had been declared MKO Abiola’s Day. He was the symbol, the rallying point, the icon of Nigeria’s second liberation in whom is fully embodied the essence of the struggle from June 12,1993 to May 29, 1999. But have we learnt any lessons from June 12?  Sadly, I don’t think so.    

Nigerians were left speechless on May 29 when after taking the oaths of office and allegiance, President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo left the Eagle Square, the venue of the Presidential Inauguration ceremony without uttering a word. The President had nothing to say to Nigerians. He simply went back into his car and returned to the Presidential Villa. I thought that was an anti-climax. It was such a beautiful ceremony, what with the prayers, parades, gun salute and the symbolic retirement of the Defence flag and the national flag and the hoisting of new ones to signal the end of a term and the beginning of another. 

The Constitution does not outline how an inauguration ceremony should be conducted, except that in Nigeria’s case, a President, who has been elected for a first term, or re-elected for a second term in office, must take an oath of office. It would amount to an illegal extension of tenure to shift the day and date. Over the years, certain traditions have also developed around Presidential inaugurations; these may vary from one country to another. In the United States, an inaugural speech is standard practice. Every US President, with the exception of about eight Presidents whose predecessors suddenly died before completing their term, have delivered an inaugural speech since George Washington (1789). Be it in Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa or India, Presidents or Prime Ministers use the opportunity of Inauguration Day to set the tone for their administration, by articulating their vision and mission. A well-written inaugural speech should capture the mood of the nation, reassure the people, connect with them, stir hope and build confidence. The beginning of a new administration provides an opportunity for the leader to give the people something to look forward to. It can also be used as a platform to send a strong message to the international community and assert leadership. Great speeches have been made on Inauguration Day particularly in the United States. Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural speech (1861), Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s inaugural speech (1933) and that of John F. Kennedy (1961) are among some of the most quoted and referenced inaugural speeches ever. Some American Presidents to deepen the event have even added a touch of poetry to the occasion as President Barack Obama did with Maya Angelou in1993.    

On May 29, 2019, President wasted a good opportunity to reach out to Nigerians. He made it look as if the whole event was a distraction if not a piece of inconvenience. And yet, the occasion called for a speech given the state of the nation. On Friday, May 29, 2015, the then newly elected 15th President of Nigeria, and the 4^thsince 1999 seized the day when he made that famous statement: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody.” He tried to reassure all Nigerians who had been entertaining fears that he would be vindictive as civilian President.  He told Nigerians: “..There will be no paying off old scores. The past is prologue.” He reminded Nigerians of the glory of the past and the nobility of our ancestors. Then he defined the priorities of his administration and his vision for the future. For weeks, Nigerians analysed and debated the President Buhari’s 2015 inaugural speech. There was hope in the air. President Buhari promised Nigerians he would deal with the security challenge in the country, strengthen the economy and also wage war against corruption. Those who voted him into power were excited. Every country needs such a moment of re-awakening. So why would the same man treat Nigerians with such contempt on May 29? A Presidential speech is not just words. Thousands have gone to war to defend their nation by just listening to the words of the leader. Winston Churchill was most effective in using his gift of the gab to mobilise an entire nation in pursuit of defined goals. 

In the 2019 Presidential election, over 15 million Nigerians voted for President Buhari. Even if he did not have a written speech, he could have spoken ex tempore, on May 29, if only to thank his supporters and all the party members across the nation who worked hard to ensure his re-election. A day after the inauguration, the President left for Saudi Arabia to attend a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation. He could while speaking ex tempore refer to that meeting and assure Nigerians work had indeed begun. There is no rule prescribing the format or nature of a Presidential inaugural speech. During his second inauguration in 1793, President George Washington’s speech was just 135 words long!

Nonetheless, President Buhari had every reason to talk to Nigerians. There is widespread insecurity in the land, far worse than the situation Nigerians faced in 2015. If President Buhari inherited certain challenges in 2015, those challenges have become worse, four years later. Insecurity is no longer about Boko Haram but banditry, farmers-herdsmen clashes, kidnapping, and the reign of impunity in parts of the country. The Buhari government may have taken Nigeria out of economic recession, but we have also been told by those who should know that we should expect slow growth and the months ahead may bring greater hardship. The evidence is already available: the spate of suicide cases in the country continues to rise. The people are depressed, there is hunger, poverty and despair. On May 29, the President had an opportunity to talk to the people he leads and allay their fears. What the people need is someone to give them hope and who will back that promise with action. As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President could also have addressed the troops. Too many innocent lives have been lost in the battlefields of Nigeria: young men and women – military officers, the police, security and intelligence agents generally, whose duty it is to keep Nigeria safe and secure in the face of the assault on the integrity of the Nigerian state by bandits and terrorists. They deserved the President’s recognition and appreciation on the occasion of his swearing in for a second term in office. 

Some of the President’s handlers and supporters have tried to dismiss objections to his failure or is it refusal (?) to make a speech on Inauguration day as much ado about northing. They argue that the government had announced previously that May 29 would be a low-key ceremony and that the main celebration would be on June 12 which has now been declared a Federal Holiday for the celebration of Democracy Day. We have now been told to expect a speech on Democracy Day. This sounds like some Presidential staff making an excuse for their own laziness. Inauguration Day and Democracy Day are two separate and distinct events requiring two different kinds of speeches. It is not as if the President even gave a national broadcast on May 29. If he did, then those who dropped the ball on May 29, could easily offer that as excuse. The President of a country cannot be accused of talking too much. President Ronald Reagan addressed the American people virtually every week, on television, on radio or through direct communication and appeal. Jeffrey K. Tulis in his book, The Rhetorical Presidency (1987) says the essence of the modern presidency lies in “rhetorical leadership”, that is power of words, engagement and connection with the people who the President has been elected to lead and serve.  Charles O. Jones in an essay titled “The Inaugural Address: Ceremony of Transitions” (2010) argues that “the inaugural address is the most exclusive of presidential speeches.”        

Those who have been defending President Buhari have also argued that the President has invited 90 or more world leaders to come and celebrate Democracy Day with Nigerians on June 12. Those world leaders who will attend the June 12 event obviously understand that they are not coming for President Buhari’s inauguration, but an entirely different event. It is up to them to decide whether to attend or not. In 2015, Nigeria invited 54 African countries to President Buhari’s inauguration. About 32 African Heads of State or their Deputies, and at least one King (the King of Swaziland) attended the event. The First Lady of Namibia, and the second Lady of Tanzania attended too; there were over 22 Foreign Ministers, the US Secretary of State, Heads of Parliaments and Heads of International Organizations including the then AU commission Chairperson, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. On that occasion too, President Buhari enjoyed the solidarity of all living former Nigerian Heads of State. This year, only General Yakubu Gowon was in attendance. Nobody has told us whether other former Heads of State were invited or not, and even if they showed up on June 12 at Democracy Day celebration, it wouldn’t make up for their conspicuous absence on May 29. 

In the absence of anything concrete to hold on to, Nigerians have resorted to speculations and the ridiculous about what happened on May 29 at the Eagle Square in Abuja. There are those who insist that the President indeed said a lot with his silence and body language. I don’t quite understand what that means. Every President can make a difference with his or her own style, but body language is such a confusing style that may be appropriate in the 19^thcentury but certainly not in this century. It was US President Woodrow Wilson who observed in 1907 that “the President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can.” Richard Neustadt tells us: “But nowadays he cannot be as small as he might like” (1960). Neustadt is right. The people ordinarily expect the President to rise to every occasion. When he fails them, they opt for the mundane. Heavy weather has been made out of the absence of former Heads of State at this year’s inauguration day in Abuja. There has also been some tittle-tattle about the supposedly brand new Mercedes Benz that brought President Buhari to the Eagle square. That is idle talk of course – should the President have gone to his own inauguration in a rickety vehicle? 

During the Presidential campaigns, the key message by President Buhari and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) is that if given a second term in office, he the President will run a government that will take Nigeria to “the next level.” He is yet to define the content of that “next level”. He could have done so on May 29.  Weeks after the dissolution of the Federal Executive Council and one week after his swearing-in, President Buhari is yet to take any step to indicate that the promised journey to “the next level” has begun. The minimum that Nigerians expect by way of difference is that by now, President Buhari would have announced some key appointments, even if all he does is to reappoint the same persons. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was sworn in on May 25, three days after he was elected to his first full term as President of South Africa, with his party gaining a majority in parliament with 57.5% of total votes cast. In his inaugural address, President Ramaphosa promised South Africans “a new era.” He told them: “There shall be no longer be any person in this land who will be unable to meet their basic needs.” He invoked the name of Nelson Mandela. He paid tribute to him. Ramaphosa’s predecessor, Mr. Jacob Zuma did not attend the inauguration. He said he did not have time. This has not stopped Ramaphosa from “hitting the ground running.” 

 He has taken some important steps including the announcement of a cabinet within four days after he was sworn in. He has used the composition of his cabinet to make some statements.  He reduced the size of the cabinet from 36 to 28 Ministers. He has also appointed a member of the opposition, Patricia de Lille (GOOD party) to head the Ministry of Public Works and Infrastructure. He got rid of persons in the former cabinet who had been implicated one way or the other in acts of corruption, except perhaps Vice President David Mabuza who seems to have been retained in order not to further factionalize the ANC. There are more young persons and women. Women constitute 50% of the new South African cabinet. Ramaphosa says: “In appointing a new national executive, I have taken a number of considerations into account: including experience, continuity, competence, generational mix, and demographic and regional diversity.” 

I believe there are lessons here, that can be learnt from South Africa and also from India where Prime Minister Narendra Modi also provides a good example of how a leader can send the right signals. Modi was sworn in on Thursday, May 30. He announced a new cabinet immediately. Like President Buhari, Prime Minister Modi has been elected for a second term. Unlike Ramaphosa’s cabinet, Modi’s cabinet is big – 58 Ministers -  and out of these, only six are women, and only three have been appointed to full Ministerial positions. It is not necessarily an inclusive cabinet. There is even only one Muslim Minister and he is Minister of Minority Affairs! Every country has its own politics. The Indian election 2019 was a referendum on Modi’s leadership. He has proven to be the main issue in Indian politics. He ran a Presidential-style campaign. He won by a landslide because the people trust him. 

He continues to build on that trust, like Ramaphosa in South Africa, by settling down to work quickly after election and swearing-in. In Nigeria, that has not happened. One week after inauguration, we are still in the dark, stuck in a limbo. Meanwhile, some aides of the President continue to work for him. By the sheer effluxion of time, the assignment of those aides automatically ended on May 28. If the President wants to reappoint them, it is within his prerogative to do so, but they cannot continue to work for him by conduct. This would amount to a violation of Sections 151 and 171 of the 1999 Constitution. President Buhari should quickly emulate the examples of President Ramaphosa (South Africa) and PM Modi (India) and get this “next level” thing off the ground. Getting the momentum right is an essential part of Presidential power.    

In the lead up to the May 29, 2019 Inauguration Day, after the general elections in Nigeria – the end of a four-year term (2015 – 2019) and the beginning of another cycle of four years - as constitutionally prescribed -certain notable developments have occurred in the last few days, involving places, events and personalities which require a quick review, lest they are overtaken by time or sheer serendipity. 

I begin with the report that Aisha Buhari, the First Lady of Nigeria, the wife of President Muhammadu Buhari has come out openly to tell Nigerians that the Social Investment Programme (SIP) initiated by her husband’s administration is nothing but a scam. I have watched the video that is available online, and I am not aware that the First Lady of Nigeria has denied making the statements attributed to her. In summary, she raised questions about the management of the N500 billion set aside for the administration’s much-touted Social Investment Programme (SIP), which indeed the Buhari administration promoted as one of the flagship initiatives under the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) designed to bring government closer to the people, and to alleviate poverty.  

Anchored majorly by the Office of the Vice President, the Buhari administration made a song and dance out of what is called TraderMoni and School Feeding Programme. We have seen Vice President Yemi Osinbajo talking about loans and grants of N10, 000 for owners of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises. We have also seen him in photos and videos, from one school to the other, eating from plates with young Nigerian students. The optics is good, the messaging strategy is smart: a humble Vice President, a government that cares and a government that helps the poor. Nigeria’s largest opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of course cried foul, alleging that the entire SIP package was a vote-buying scheme and that TraderMoni in particular amounted to illegal, extra-budgetary spending. The PDP was asked to shut up by the Buhari propaganda machinery. 

However, if the PDP’s catcalls about the Social Investment Programme could be dismissed as partisan, Mrs. Aisha Buhari’s latest outburst cannot be so dismissed. At an interactive session with Nigerian women ahead of May 29, Mrs Buhari pointed out that she has never asked how the money is being used (Madam, that is not your call!). She then added: “I do not want to raise the alarm that my state does not benefit from it …” -  (and that is Adamawa State), the state of the SGF and the wife of the President. We may well say that the First lady should not worry so much about her personal interest. But she is a Nigerian isn’t she? We all know the sentiments: “My husband will approve N500 billion for a project and my state, Adamawa will not benefit from it?” She then quickly corrected herself: “Maybe it worked in some states…In my own state, only a local government benefitted out of the 22. I didn’t ask what happened and I don’t want to know but it failed woefully in Kano, it’s not a good sign and it’s not a good thing…Most Northern women are not benefitting from it.”  

At this point in the video posted on YouTube by Channels TV, the narrative gets even more interesting. Mrs Buhari says the method adopted in the South may not be the best suitable method for the North “because most Northern women do not belong to market associations”. She talked about the need to use a different method in the North but apparently her advice was ignored. She said: ‘the method may differ in the North, and to use different methods…Most of the Northern states did not get the money.” 

The First Lady would also go on to complain about a certain $16 million approved for the purchase of mosquito nets. She is not too sure that the money has been properly spent. “I have heard about mosquito nets. Nigeria paid its counterpart fund, $16m. I asked them to give my own share of the net to send to my village people. I didn’t get it. They have spent $16m on buying mosquito nets. I did not get it, maybe some people have gotten it…” 

These allegations and revelations by the wife of the President of Nigeria are serious indeed and should not be swept under the carpet. She is practically accusing the Vice President’s office of wrong-doing. Because funds are involved, the allegations are damning. She is not just defending the interest of her state and the entire North, the video even showed her calling up potential witnesses: “How many of you get it in your state? My state did not get it.?.” Coming shortly after the 2019 Presidential election, the wife of the President openly pointing accusing fingers at the Vice President’s office is an open indication that something may have gone wrong in Aso Rock. There may well be an on-going battle within the Presidency, the nature and depth of which we may not yet know. Coming to the surface, more or less on the eve of the Inauguration of President Buhari’s second term, we may be permitted to say that something is fishy.

This is a perfectly reasonable deduction considering the fact that Mrs. Aisha Buhari has a reputation for speaking her mind no matter whose ox is gored. Just before she threw the bombshell about the SIP and mosquito nets, she also reportedly posted a Julius Malema (EFF leader, South Africa) video on twitter warning about the menace of “bad advisers”, which has been interpreted to mean that her husband, President Buhari should stay away from bad advisers and those who turn Presidents into “prisoners.” Before now, she had complained that her husband’s government had been hijacked by “a few persons”. She and her daughter, also once protested publicly about the mismanagement of the State House Clinic. I wrote once in the face of all that, about what I thought was an unusual development: the spectacle of a wife of the President as a whistle-blower. 

I suggested that Mrs Buhari was breaking every known norm and convention about the position she occupies. Before her, every Nigerian First lady either supported their husbands (Victoria Aguiyi-Ironsi, Victoria Gowon, Ajoke Muhammed, Stella Obasanjo, Maryam Babangida, Maryam Abacha, Turai Yar’Adua, Patience Jonathan), or they were unknown (Tafawa Balewa’s wife, Shagari’s wife) or they just faced their own careers (Chief Shonekan’s wife, Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar’s wife). I argued further that the doctrine of the unity of spouse requires Mrs Buhari to support the President at all times. As I see it, today, however, Mrs. Aisha Buhari falls into the category of Presidential wives who are interested in power and are determined to get involved.  She once threatened that if her husband went beyond a first term in office, she would not campaign for him.  She ate her words on that score. She campaigned for him. She clearly loves power and the glamour of it, and she clearly wants more. Where is Chinweizu, please? Anatomy of female power?

President Buhari once told Chancellor Angela Merkel (of Germany, not West Germany!!!), in a historic faux pas, that his wife’s place, that is Aisha Buhari’s place, is in the “sitting room, the kitchen and the other room”. Aisha Buhari is making it clear that she is nobody’s slave. She is showing a determination to assert her stake in the Nigerian power game. She is up against “bad advisers” and those who mismanage resources. Will she prepare a petition against those who have mismanaged the SIP and the mosquito nets? Or is she just sending a signal that this time around, this second term of her husband’s Presidency, she is not prepared to take nonsense from anybody, including the Vice President’s office? It will be useful to watch “the other room” politics of Aso Rock closely beginning from tomorrow. It was, partly, yes, partly, the battle of the wives and of “the other room” that catalyzed the crisis of the Western region in the 60s, but that is beyond the purview of this present commentary. 

What we know is that the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Social Investment, Mrs Maryam Uwais, who is directly in charge of the SIP, has replied Mrs Buhari. I was amused watching Mrs Uwais saying “…if she were to check on our data…” Imagine that tone. A Senior Special Assistant to the President working with the Vice President publicly dismissing the wife of the President as uninformed and ignorant. She then delivered the killer-punch - out of the 4.2 million Adamawa state indigenes, 290, 000 – 300, 000 beneficiaries from 12 Local Government Areas have benefitted from loans and cash transfers under the SIP. Maryam Uwais didn’t pull the punches. But what the heck? She is a successful lawyer and a well-known social activist, and the wife of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria. She sounds like: “Aisha, what the hell are you talking about? What do you know about SIP? And mosquito nets? What do you know? Because you are Buhari’s wife?” 

I don’t want to get into the battle of the women of Aso Rock under President Buhari, his wife who is probably for all we know reporting pillow talk, Mrs Uwais who is probably speaking as a proxy for the Osinbajos and Mrs Osinbajo who would not dare raise her voice because she doesn’t want trouble for her husband. But I am amused that a staff of the President would have the audacity to challenge the President’s wife and accuse her of ignorance. No staff, I repeat, no staff, could ever have tried that with some of Mrs Buhari’s predecessors. By now, Mrs Uwais’s Villa pass would have been withdrawn with strict instructions that she must never be seen anywhere near the perimeter fence of that seat of power. There would also have been drama “in the other room” to remind the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of where real and sustainable power lies in Nigeria. 

This columnist respects other people’s privacy, so in keeping with that principle, let me not thrust my pen into the President’s other room, but I am of the firm belief that we have not yet seen the end of Aisha Buhari’s politics. We intend to take her seriously as she issues commands and comments. She says: “Can you please monitor the money? The Ministers are going very soon and the money is being released” (money for the anti-drug committee and treatment of trauma cases). She also wants the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to refund money to female aspirants who bought nomination forms for the 2019 elections. Hello oh: Aisha-Buhari-is-not-joking!  

As the President takes the oath of office on May 29, 2019, we can be certain to see her by his side keeping an eye on him and the future. The Nigerian Constitution does not recognize the wives of elected persons but our constitutional democracy does not consider being married a crime either. In a sense, May 29 is a special day for the families of those who will be taking the oath of office tomorrow. I was at an event on Monday where I introduced myself as a failed Deputy Governorship candidate. Every one laughed but I knew what I was saying. If our party had won, I would have been somewhere in my state double-checking clothes and attending to visitors and well-wishers, preparing to wear the best smile for D-Day. Someone suggested, in consolation, that in Nigeria, losing an election is a good item for the CV, and that a day may well come when defeated political aspirants may be given chieftaincy titles and national honours. I believe: Anything is possible in Nigeria! So whatever may be the difficult situation in which we have found ourselves, we should congratulate all the persons who will be sworn in tomorrow as Governors and Deputy Governors across the country, and that includes Zamfara State where power has descended on candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) like manna from Heaven at the eleventh hour, courtesy of the apex court and the G8-APC.  

Tomorrow is a day for winners. It is also a day for losers. Many who have lost power and influence, whose parties have been asked to leave, those who have literally come to the end of the road because they lost, would be very lonely indeed.  I have been through that path before. In 2015, immediately after power was won and lost, Aso Villa became ghost town. Those who used to hustle to see the President kept their distance. We watched painfully as power slipped and influence ebbed away. I ran into one of those businessmen who used to hang around the Villa and asked him if he was going to see the President. He told me he was not there to see…which President? I was terrified. “My brother, wake up”, he told me, “I am a businessman. We businessmen don’t have friends. I come here to do business. If your oga can give power away, he is on his own. We will do business with the next man.” Indeed, that was exactly what happened. Many of the people who would book private jets to Abuja tomorrow to celebrate with the Buharis will be there, not because they like President Buhari, but because they are just doing business. If Vice President Atiku Abubakar had won, the same persons will be there too, grinning for ear to ear, breaking fast, doing business. The story will be the same in the states. Everyone, doing business, with the people’s lives.  

Those who can tell how it is are the losers whose phones by now would have stopped ringing. Once you lose power in Nigeria, you become very lonely. The bell at your doorstep will go silent. Mrs. Aisha Buhari, complaining about the Social Investment Programme and the cost of mosquito nets is probably not as ignorant as we have been told. She probably knows that everyone around her husband just wants to do business. That is the sad part of the Nigerian story.    

Babajide Sanwoolu, the Lagos State governor-elect and some of the other governors-elect across the country have been busy making promises and beating their chests out of what seems like an epileptic fit of triumphalism.  I urge caution. The new wife is always tempted to put down the old wife – that is what African tradition and culture tells us and in modern politics or what we call democracy, this anthropological and cultural side of our nativist politics often shows up to remind us of the residual character of African democracy. But in the long run, the old ends up looking like the new in emergent African democracies because of the putative nature of our democratic institutions, the inchoateness of African states and institutions, the depressing crisis of democratic governance and the problematic recruitment of leadership across Africa. We are beginning to see a little of that after the 2019 general elections in Nigeria and I think concerned stakeholders should pay attention, and use some of the indications for the mapping and analysis of future outcomes. 

In Lagos, the Governor-elect, Babajide Sanwoolu has been busy making promises. Lagos is a good example to start with because it is the heart beat of the Nigerian economy. Lagos state is one of the few states in Nigeria that can pay the new national minimum wage. It is the soul of the Nigerian economy. It is one of the very few productive economies in Nigeria, capable of generating more revenue than what accrues to it from the Federation Account under the purview of section 162 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended and altered. Sanwoolu, an anointed candidate of the godfathers of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, chosen as an alternative to an incumbent Governor who fell out of favour with the same Godfathers – the Baba so wi pe group- is a very lucky man indeed. Elections are not necessarily won in Africa on the basis of popular choice- political leaders are often anointed and brought to power by those who have mastered how to exploit the fault lines of the electoral process  viz: the manipulation of electoral structures, institutions and processes, an organized, vicious disinformation process to discredit the opposition and civil society mechanisms, the manipulation and distortion of dominant narratives and the brazen abuse of the instruments of coercion.   

Whatever may have brought Babajide Sanwoolu to power (still under investigation), he and others in his situation should be governed or guided by the Chinua Achebe paradigm that those whose palm kernels were crushed for them by benevolent gods should learn to be humble. I see a trend: the newly elected Governors replacing the incumbents who lost out in the power game have been behaving as if they are wiser and smarter. They should be reminded that that was exactly how their would-be predecessors behaved when they displaced the incumbents that were once in office. Even at the Presidential level, those who voted for President Muhammadu Buhari thought that under his watch, the Goodluck Jonathan administration will be put to shame and that Nigeria would fare better. The indicators have shown that Nigerians were much better off under Jonathan, but I will not comment further on this, and hence return promptly to the focus of this commentary. 

Sanwoolu, the Governor-elect of Lagos State has been quoted making many promises, after the 2019 election in the spirit of the triumphalism of the moment.  He says for example that he will employ graduates as BRT drivers and pay them N100, 000 as salary. Sanwoolu was speaking to his former classmates - the Executive Master of Business Administration class, University of Lagos, 1998/2000 set. He was asked questions by his own former classmates and all he could offer were promises. His incoming government will do this. And will do that. That is what most of these newly-elected Governors and legislators across the country have been doing. They are ever-ready with poorly considered, formulaic responses. Sanwoolu wants to pay drivers N100, 000? Has he checked whether or not the state can afford to do so? 

At the same event, Sanwoolu boasted that he would put an end to the traffic gridlock on the Apapa expressway within 60 days of his inauguration. He should be careful about what he promises. One of his predecessors, as Lagos Governor, Babatunde Fashola once boasted when President Jonathan was in office, that the problem of electricity supply in Nigeria could be solved within six months. God decided to put him on the spot.  He has been Minister of Power for four years. He has not been able to solve the same problem. In fact, he has been having problems with the private sector stakeholders who now play a dominant role in the electricity sector. They don’t see eye to eye, in a manner of speaking. Elected and appointed persons should learn to moderate their enthusiasm.      

Babajide Sanwoolu represents a known type. The ambitious triumphalists of the psot-2019 general election in Nigeria believe, or perhaps they assume that they represent a new type, but they are at best products of an established stereotype: the same comprador-bourgeoisie responsible for the capture of the Nigerian state. But as Governor-elect of Lagos state, I want to give Babajide Sanwoolu of Lagos State a benefit of the doubt. For this reason: I served with him as a pioneer member of the Lagos State Security Trust Fund (2007 – 2011). Governor Babatunde Fashola was our appointor. Mr. Remi Makanjuola of Caverton Helicopters, was our Chairman. Mr Fola Arthur-Worrey, former Solicitor-General of Lagos State was the Executive Secretary of the Board. It was our remit to build the foundation of the Lagos State Security Trust Fund.  That remit was based on a foundation of service and contribution. Nobody on that board ever collected a penny for serving on it. Governor Fashola did not offer a penny and we too did not ask. We had a meeting over whether or not we should collect sitting allowances. 

We all resolved that we did not need sitting allowances. When we held meetings, Mr Fola Arthur Worrey and Mr Makanjuola did not offer us refreshment or lunch. The Trust Fund could not afford it. We could not in good conscience ask the private sector and other stakeholders to donate vehicles and funds for the security of the people of Lagos State and use part of that money to have lunch. Babajide Sanwoolu was one of those members who supported the Chairman, Mr Makanjuola and the Executive Secretary, Fola Arthur-Worrey. He clearly understood the meaning of service and responsibility.  

We were all glad to serve under the leadership of Mr. Makanjuola, and happy not to use donated funds for lunch or sitting allowances. We used the donated funds to build an emergency and command centre at Alausa, to launch an emergency distress number and to provide vehicles and other facilities for the Navy, the military, the Police, neighbourhood vigilante groups and the civil defence forces in Lagos in the best interest of the people of Lagos state. We all made the sacrifice together and Sanwoolu was part of our team.  Before then, he had served as Special Adviser and Commissioner within the Lagos State establishment and he would thereafter serve in other capacities in government.  

I bring this up out of the belief that Sanwoolu who has been part of the Lagos government since he was brought into the picture, from banking to public service, would remain committed to higher goals and the values of integrity. He must therefore see the need to refrain as he prepares for his inauguration on May 29 as Governor from making empty promises. He should know that he cannot fix the Apapa traffic gridlock in 60 days! He is not a professional politician. He should resist the temptation to talk like one. He must also know that the media will call him to account and will double check. His public communication managers must advise him not to make promises that he cannot keep. 

As Governor of Lagos State, Sanwoolu must also resist the temptation to hound his predecessor, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode. Ambode may not be so politically astute, he being a thoroughbred technocrat, but he does not deserve the punishment and the betrayal that he has experienced. Ambode was my colleague as a US Fulbright scholar- specifically the Hubert Humphrey Programme in the United States about two decades ago. The motto of the programme is: “an individual can make a difference.” There is no doubt in my mind that Governor Ambode of Lagos State has made a difference in Lagos State and in other areas of engagement. We are proud of him and I am sure the constituencies that he belongs to as a scholar and technocrat will be pleased that he has given a good account of himself.  His contributions to Lagos state cannot be erased. He may have made some mistakes. Sanwoolu should not allow himself to be used as an instrument to humiliate him or embarrass him as he steps out of office.   

But while I have used Sanwoolu as an exemplar of the kind of promises we have been having from new Governors or even by extension, legislators-elect (one legislator-elect has promised to turn his constituency into a version of Heaven – but how, please?, how? - these shameless liars! ), it is noteworthy that  even out-going Governors have been been behaving badly and making unreasonable promises. What they could not achieve in four, eight years, some of these defeated or outgoing Governors have been talking about. You know the Governors of Oyo, Ogun and Bauchi states for example. In Oyo state, Ajumobi has had the effrontery of insisting that he is the best thing that ever happened to Oyo State. In Ogun State, Governor Ibikunle Amosun has set up an official web of conspiracy around the in-coming Governor Dapo Abiodun. I have written a piece on this previously. What I got in response was an insulting and disrespectful rejoinder. I am sure Governor Ibikunle Amosun and I will sooner or later meet at a level that is beyond politics, because when he is no longer Governor, and he is no longer in a place to deploy aides to insult me, it will be clear to him that I offered an informed and honest opinion. In due course, everything will fall into place, beyond the larger politics of Nigeria. 

But back to Nigeria, the worst of them of all is the departing Governor of Imo State. His name is Rochas Okorocha. He too, behaving like “the constituted authority of Oyo State” has been busy boasting that he, Rochas has achieved everything and there is nothing for his elected successor, Emeka Ihedioha to achieve anymore. We are told that the only thing left for Ihedioha to achieve is to complete a building Rochas Okorocha is yet to complete because Okrorcha has already done everything!  Does that make sense?  Okay, may be what is left is for Emeka Ihedioha to erect a statue of Rochas Okorocha as a befitting recognition of the legacy of a man who turned lifeless statues into a symbol of statecraft.   

I sympathize with the people of Imo State. And I jubilate with them. If indeed Owelle Rochas Okorocha made that statement, and he has not deemed it necessary to deny it, then nobody needs to be told that the people of Imo State made a good decision voting for Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). If I may be allowed to be partisan for a few minutes, Emeka Ihedioha is one of our own. He is a journalist. He left the newsroom and went into politics. He ended up as a Member of the House of Representatives and as deputy Speaker of that House.  He has led some of the progressive causes in the making and re-making of Nigeria since 1999, and in his constituency, the media constituency, we are very proud of him and his achievements. He is a symbol and a representative for the Nigerian media community. He shares that distinction with Bala Muhammed, the Governor-elect of Bauchi state, who is also a journalist. Bala Muhammed has been a Senator of the Federal Republic. He has served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. He did his best as Minister. He was efficient and reasonable. But he has been much maligned by the authorities, and those committed to their own selfish interests. He has now been validated and vindicated by his own people who have moved him from grass to glory by voting for him as Governor. 

Here is my post-election, preliminary analysis, in this regard, in no way exhaustive or definitive- one of a series – It seems to me that most of our newly-elected representatives, Governors-elect and legislators- elect do not have any idea about democracy or the assignment that lies ahead of them and the out-going elected representatives are mentally blocked about the privileges that they have enjoyed.  They are committed to their own personal interests, not the common good. The Governors just want to govern. They talk without thinking. They have no real plans. They just want power. About two or four exceptions perhaps, but for the most part, Nigerians should be concerned about this revelation. We are likely to get the same of the same. But it would help if the elected persons ahead of their inauguration, try to be sensible enough not to behave badly or make unintelligent statements or such political speech that cast doubts on their eligibility for office.  They will destroy their own credibility by so doing. And it would help a great deal more if departing Governors and legislators-elect can just keep quiet too, and focus more on the common good. The election was bad enough. They should not make things worse by showing so early in the day that the people made mistakes.