It is difficult to imagine that the Church in Nigeria and its leaders would not be interested in politics as Nigeria begins preparations for the general elections in 2023. A heated and emotional controversy was stirred last weekend when it became public knowledge that the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) had set up The Directorate of Politics and Governance. Many raised an eyebrow. Why would the Church create a Department of Politics and Governance? Publisher, veteran journalist, newspaper columnist and Presidential aspirant Aare Dele Momodu described the development as “an invitation to Armageddon” in an essay titled “My Kobo Advice to Redeemed Christian Church of God” (ThisDay newspaper, back page, March 12, 2022).  His main concern was what he described as “the general conspiracy theory that our church was setting up an extensive network for the obvious Presidential ambition of the current Vice President, President Yemi Osinbajo”, whereas there are other members of the RCCG, including his good self who are interested in the Presidential race. Why should the Church favour one person over and above other members? 

In a notable response, Kolade Segun Oke-Owo, Deputy Director, Directorate of Politics and Governance, PFN, Ogun State, and National President, Believers in Politics writes as follows: “…The RCCG did not actually create the Directorate of Politics and governance. The creation of the Directorate is a brain child of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria under His Eminence, Bishop Wale Oke, its National President. The RCCG only became the first among other Pentecostal Churches in Nigeria under the leadership of PFN to kowtow and subscribe to the vision of the Directorate of Politics and Governance. It may also interest Uncle Dele Momodu that the National Directorate of Politics and Governance of the PFN is not headed by a member of the RCCG but a General Overseer from another denomination in the person of Rt. Hon. Pastor Femi Emmanuel.”

The fact that only a few days after the Dele Momodu essay, the Daily Trust newspaper and others published a story indicating that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo has now notified President Muhammadu Buhari of his interest in the 2023 Presidential race, before that was refuted, lent greater currency to the Dele Momodu protest. The truth indeed is that over the past few months, a group of hidden and open persuaders have been threatening to sue Vice President Osinbajo if he did not throw his hat into the 2023 ring. Members of the RCCG have also not helped matters. They have often said that the General Overseer of the Church, Pastor Enoch Adeboye once predicted that a day would come when a member of the Church would become President of Nigeria. When Professor Osinbajo emerged as Vice President of Nigeria in 2015, the members were excited. They talked openly about a prophecy that was about to be fulfilled. Professor Yemi Osinbajo is not just a member of the RCCG Congregation; he is a Pastor and one of the most visible leaders of the Church. Dele Momodu’s essay is a statement of caution: that the church cannot turn itself into a political machinery and a partisan campaign platform for one individual enjoying a special advantage. He is also a member of the Church. The wife of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, also a Presidential aspirant, is equally a member and a Pastor of the Church. He wants the church to be neutral. Equality before God should translate into equality of aspirations under the umbrella of the Church.  Dele Momodu’s supporters have suggested in accompanying reactions that the Church should stay out of partisan politics. In 1961, the Sage, Obafemi Awolowo had put up the same argument as Momodu’s. He said: “It follows that in order that it may discharge its functions, a religious organization must be independent of Government and its patronage and must never be subordinated to its dictates or whims… A religious organization should never allow itself to be regarded as the mouth piece and instrument of the powers-that-be…”. This may be a difficult argument to sustain.

The Church has been enmeshed in politics from time immemorial, from the Roman Empire, to the Medieval Era and to the present day. In the New Testament, the word “ekklesia” which is used to refer to the Church actually means a political assembly, a political association, a gathering. The separation of the State and the Church, or the separation of secular and religious power, has not always been so clear-cut. During the Crusades (circa, 1095 - 1291), Christians fought wars to acquire or regain territory. The Holy Book itself is full of this intersection between the Church, power struggles and secular politics. The clergy are not just spiritual leaders, they fight political battles worse than what is found in the secular community. The argument that the state and religion should be separated is largely theoretical.  In 1534, King Henry VIII of England established the Church of England, away from the Catholic Church following disagreements with Pope Clement VII on the scope of papal authority over marital choices. The politics of it is well captured in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons. The Anglican Church continues to play a dominant role in British politics. Back home here in Nigeria, the kind of politics that church leaders play, including litigations and open quarrels, is far more vicious than what is found in the regular political arena. To give a case in point would be the acrimonious conflicts over control and succession in the Celestial Church of Christ since the passing of the founder, Samuel Bilewu Joseph Oschoffa in September 1985. In 2015, Pope Francis advised that Catholics must participate in politics. Just as Christians won’t hands off secular and sectarian politics, being human beings and political animals, leaders of the Muslim congregation are also just as involved.  

It should be recognized also that ethnicity and religion are perhaps the two most central factors in the politics of power in Nigeria, as has been proven and examined in such works as Religion, Politics and Power in Northern Nigeria by Matthew Hassan Kukah, Iheanyi Enwerem’s A Dangerous Awakening: The Politicisation of Religion in Nigeria, and Religion and Politics in Nigeria: A Study in Middle Belt Christianity by Neils Kartfelt. Nigerian politicians over the years have used both ethnicity and religion as instruments of manipulating the people for their own purposes, exploiting the people’s fears about domination by the other. Religion has featured prominently in ethnic conflicts in the Middle Belt, on the Plateau, Southern Kaduna and elsewhere, with one group persecuting the other through repeated cycles of violence, and the State, which should enforce peace and justice, is usually partial and biased, taking sides, most cynically, depending on the religious affiliation of the persons in power at the moment. It is this linkage between religious belief and how power is exercised that has resulted in the political patronage of religious groups and the rise of partisanship in places of worship.  Nigerian politicians, regardless of the express provision of the Constitution that there shall be no state religion (Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution) have nonetheless turned religion into a special centre of engagement. In every Government House in the states and the State House in Abuja, there is usually a Mosque and a Church, power shifts between both locations depending on the religion of the main leader in charge, who accordingly appoints Special Advisers and Assistants on Religious matters. Christian leaders send members of their constituency on pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Muslim leaders do the same for members of their religious community. Despite assurances over the years that the state shall no longer fund religious trips, the Pilgrims Welfare Boards of Nigeria continue to exist at all levels.  

The assumption is that a Christian leader would defend the Christian faith and a Muslim leader would do the same for his own constituency as well. In every election at both Federal and State levels, Nigerians have adopted the convention of a Christian and Muslim ticket, in joint political races, to give the people a sense of balance, access and proximity to power.  The most remarkable exception to this pattern occurred in 1993 when a Muslim-Muslim ticket of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) Presidential candidates- Bashorun MKO Abiola and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe won the Presidential election. Given the manner in which religion has further driven a wedge between Nigerians, it would be difficult to reproduce that magical moment again, either now, or in the immediate future. The Church in Nigeria believes that the time has come to do more than preaching and praying and become an active political force.

In yet another statement on the matter, titled “The New Dawn: Church Prophetic Political Delivery and Responsibility of the Church (March 11, 2022)”, Bishop Theophilus Taiwo Ajose, Ph. D declared that all church fathers and leaders are required to direct their members and followers to “register for and update their Permanent Voters Cards (PVC) and “urgently join any political party of their choice at the ward (grassroots) levels and participate actively in political activities of that party while upholding righteousness.” It is important to further understand the context of this ideological declaration. Hitherto, the Church in Nigeria acted as the moral compass without necessarily being partisan. During the struggle for democracy, 1993 -1999, Catholic Bishops, leaders of the Anglican Church and the Pentecostal Federation fought for the rights of Bashorun Abiola and Baba Gana Kingibe to be given their mandate. It didn’t matter that both men were Muslims. The Church was a modulating voice of reason. The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria and the Catholic Secretariat through the Justice Development and Peace Departments of the Church fought for democracy and development. The Anglican Church and the Pentecostal Federation were also in the forefront of the struggle. Many would remember the heroism of the Rt. Rev Peter Adebiyi, one of Chief Abraham Adesanya’s most trusted lieutenants, popularly known as the NADECO Bishop, Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi and his fiery sermons and the stinging interventions of John Cardinal Onaiyekan, as well as the activism of the likes of Fr. Matthew Hassan Kukah, Fr. George Ehusani, Fr. John Uba Ofei and and Fr. Iheanyi Enwerem. Catholic priests on one occasion trooped to the streets in defence of democracy! Today, Nigerian church leaders and the Congregation are more interested in fighting for their own. They want their own people in power, even at the traditional, grassroots level. But that didn’t start now.

I recall that as President Goodluck Jonathan’s spokesperson in the lead up to the 2015 general elections, in the course of the campaigns, our campaign train visited as many major churches in the country as possible. We saw crowds of potential voters. Prayers were offered. There were declarations of vision and revelations. The Church was not necessarily fighting for democracy in 2014/2015. It wanted to protect its members who had become victims of religious and ethnic conflicts. Church leaders wanted a Christian President to remain in office to address the emerging crisis. Later, when I ran on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party as a Deputy Gubernatorial candidate in Ogun State in 2018/19, it was part of my schedule as the Christian on the PDP Muslim-Christian ticket to interface with the Christian community. We had a high-ranking member of the PFN in our political camp who made the necessary arrangements, and hence, we went from one church to the other, preaching to church elders. I even participated in debates organized by churches for political party candidates. It was clear to me from the interactions that church leaders in Ogun State wanted power to shift to a Christian candidate, the outgoing Governor then, being a Muslim who had spent eight years in office.  If the church leaders saw any visions, they did not tell me.  

It is perhaps the same drama that is now playing out ahead of the 2023 general elections. With a Muslim as Nigerian President for eight years, and with the Nigerian Christian community convinced that a Muslim-led Nigerian Presidency persecutes Christians and pampers Muslims, the Church of Nigeria appears resolved to get into the arena of action.  It seems Christian forces are now ready to sponsor candidates and mobilize the Congregation, armed with PVCs. The Church has also been drawn into the politics of zoning and rotation. It won’t be long before the various branches of the PFN begin to have chapters of political parties. No one should be surprised if some churches ask every soon that they should be designated as polling units or centres! When that happens, sermons in churches would become political manifestoes. It would be a reflection of how desperate every Nigerian constituency has become, how badly religion has divided us, and how high the stakes would be in 2023.  

The truth is that churches in Nigeria today have become far more secular than they were a few years ago. The original words of the Lord Jesus Christ distinguished between the secular and the spiritual thus: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12: 17). But in Nigeria today, those in charge of God’s affairs are threatening to contest with Caesar. They seek to move from a place of independence and spiritual power to the main arena. Many churches are personal estates. Many are business investments. The other day, the General Overseer of the Christ Living Hope Church with Headquarters in Anambra, Rev. Ugochuckwu Emmanuel Ekwem was caught at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport by the Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) trying to smuggle 54 sticks of drugs to Kenya. Religious faith is in decline in Nigeria. Political belief is about to dilute religious belief, far more aggressively. The church is seeking redemption through politics. How far will it or can it go?

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 12:00pm

Guest: Inibehe Effiong (Human rights Lawyer)

Topic: Gov. Umahi’s sack, APC Leadership crisis & Other Issues

Date: Saturday, March 12, 2022

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206

So much has happened locally and globally recently - the nerve-wracking fuel scarcity in Nigeria, the war in Ukraine, the signing of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill and the attendant controversies, the amendment of 68 clauses in the 1999 Constitution also, so much really that the Nigerian commentariat has more or less overlooked some of the quiet significant issues within the Nigerian polity. While this may be understandable given the relative weight and urgency of news, it seems to me that one issue that should be highlighted is the political crisis in Zamfara State, and how this speaks to the character of Nigerian politicians, the politics of opportunism and the fault lines of Nigerian politics. For the benefit of those who may have forgotten, after the 2019 general elections, the All Progressives Congress in Zamfara State was declared winner of the Gubernatorial election, having won the majority of the votes. But some members of the party challenged this outcome, on the grounds that the party did not conduct a lawful primary to select the gubernatorial candidate as required by the Electoral Act. Ahead of the 2019 general election, the APC in Zamfara state was in fact, divided right down the middle.

It eventually ended up as one of the three states whose Gubernatorial elections were altered through court cases. In May 2019, the Supreme Court voided the victory of the APC, and awarded victory to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which was a very distant second to the APC. In the election,  the APC Governorship candidate, Muktar Idris, was declared winner with 534, 541 votes to defeat Bello Muhammad  Matawalle of the PDP who had 189, 452 votes. In the State House of Assembly, the APC won all the available 24 seats.  The main ground for the ruling was that the primary conducted by the APC was unlawful. The injury to the APC was thus self-inflicted. The party’s plight was in other words, akin to an own goal in a football match. The PDP that benefitted from this did not even score up to two-thirds of the votes. Every effort to get the Supreme Court to set aside its ruling in the Zamfara case and the Imo case in which there was some strange arithmetic that threw up the fourth  person in the in the election race,  did not succeed, raising further concerns about the importance of pre-election matters and how political parties conduct their affairs.

In Zamfara, the obvious beneficiary of the crisis was Bello Matawalle and 24 members of the State House of Assembly who got into office by sheer default. Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, a Professor of Law drew attention to this recently when he argued that the courts should probably pay more attention to the expressed will of the people rather than technicalities. My response to that was that it was strange to hear the Law Professor questioning what looked like a straightforward application of the law on the basis of his own partisan commitments. The Vice President was speaking at the 53^rd Conference of the National Association of Law Teachers in Kano on the theme: “Law, Democracy and the Electoral Process”. Recent developments in Zamfara State have now raised fresh questions, beyond the judgment itself.

Matawalle, who became Governor by default, was a member of the All Progressives Congress in Zamfara State in the lead up to the 2019 Gubernatorial election. He had been in the ANPP, then he later joined the PDP.  He wanted to get power by all means. He tried the Gubernatorial race in 2015 against then Governor Abdulaziz Yari and failed. He would later become the face of the PDP in the state. But to consolidate his position and to strengthen himself against speculations that disgruntled elements in the APC who had disagreed  with then Governor Abdulaziz Yari and were on their way to the PDP led by Senator Kabir Marafa, Abu  Magaji, and Dauda Lawal, Matawalle felt a need to strengthen his hold on the PDP.  He simply linked up with General Aliyu Gusau, the de facto leader of the PDP in Zamfara state and a man of great influence in Nigerian affairs, both political and administrative. This was how General Aliyu Gusau’s son, Mahdi Ali Gusau, a lawyer, became Matawalle’s running mate. As providence would have it, he became a Supreme Court Governor, with Mahdi Gusau as his Deputy.

It was obvious that the APC was not happy with their loss of the Governorship seat in Zamfara state, just as they were determined to mount pressure on other PDP Governors in the country to join the APC, or return to it. It is on record that apart from wooing the PDP governors, the APC, being the ruling party in the country also used the coercive instruments of state to intimidate the opposition members that they thought could swell their ranks. It was therefore not surprising when Bello Matawalle, began to trace his roots back to the ANPP wing of the APC. It did not matter to him that under the relevant laws, it is a political party that wins an election, not the candidate. He practically took the victory awarded by the Courts to the PDP back to the APC. This is the height of opportunism. What point is Matawalle trying to prove? Is he telling his opponents in the APC, the likes of Abdulaziz Yari, Marafa, Magaji and Lawal  that he is originally an APC member, having started his political career with the ANPP and that no one can push him out of his old political constituency? So, has Professor Yemi Osinbajo been vindicated when he asked that the courts should pay more attention to the people’s political preferences and behaviour?

The major comma in Matawalle’s opportunism is that his deputy, Mahdi Ali Gusau refused to defect to the APC with him. Ali Gusau stood by his decision to stay in the PDP. He argued that the party’s electoral victory in 2019 belonged to the party not its candidates. For this, Gusau has been heavily victimized. He was accused of having dismissed members of the House of Assembly as “illiterates.” Ali Gusau may have acted out of loyalty to his father, but his conduct also shows loyalty to the platform,  that is, the party, that brought him to power and a commitment to principles. He has projected a different attitude to politics, a moral high ground that is unusual. Beyond this is the vulnerability of Deputy Governors under the Constitution. Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, Governors have treated their Deputies with disdain, like spare tyres. On February 23, the State House of Assembly, the same lawmakers of Zamfara who also got to the House by default, responded to a report by a certain judicial panel which considered “allegations of abuse of office, criminal self-enrichment and failure to discharge official duties” against the Deputy Governor. Twenty two of them were in attendance. One lawmaker had refused to jump ship. The entire process was concluded within a matter of hours. Governor Matawalle had already stationed a replacement nearby – Hassan Nasiha Gusau, a serving Senator representing Zamfara Central, who was immediately sworn in as a replacement. Note the cynicism. A Gusau is removed. Another Gusau is appointed in his place!

The process for the removal of a Deputy Governor from office is outlined in Section 188 (1-11) of the 1999 Constitution. It is clear that Mahdi Gusau was subjected to a kangaroo process and a victimization trial. He being a lawyer, and the PDP have since gone to court, but of note is - Section 188 (10) of the Constitution which  is clear in stating that “no proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.” Mahdi Gusau’s  and PDP lawyers are likely to argue however that the House of Assembly that removed him is illegal and unconstitutional, the whole House having defected to the APC, without any division within the PDP, as the Constitution stipulates, and therefore, if anything, they, along with the Governor, are the ones to lose their seats.

While it may be difficult to predict the outcome of the case in court, it is important to state that the Zamfara story is a bad omen for the polity. The fact that this has been followed up by the failure of the APC, Nigeria’s ruling party, to put its House in order is even a worse demonstration in this regard. Yesterday, for example, security personnel had to cordon off the APC Secretariat in Abuja. After initial reports that there was no division in the APC, but only disagreements, we all saw yesterday that the party is in fact divided. Nigerians politicians have a character flaw. They cannot be trusted either as individuals or as a class. They keep jumping from one part of the fence to the other for strange and selfish reasons.  Is there anything that could be done by the people, or by the authorities, if not now, may be in the future, to strengthen Nigeria’s political party process, and to check the impunity of the ruling elite? In other jurisdictions, despite the quarrels within parties, politicians do not jump ship the way ours do in Nigeria, moving around like a yo-yo. We must find a way of making integrity the pillar of political participation in Nigeria. The crisis in Zamfara is all about the behaviour of the professional political class.  Mattawale gets to power with the PDP and the Gusau connection. As soon as he settles down, and he thinks he has enough muscle of his own to call the shots, he dumps his benefactors, and begins to offer an unsolicited lecture on loyalty while betraying the same code.  The same drama is being played out within the APC at the centre. By the time the dust settles, no one should be surprised if the APC alliance crumbles and the component parts go their separate ways, for selfish reasons.

The lesson of this is that we should begin to subject candidates seeking public office to more rigorous enquiry. All kinds of persons present themselves for public office, but by the time we realize who exactly they are, it is often too late. But think about this: when and if we manage to unmask them, can we get them removed? That is near-impossible considering the complexities of the Nigerian arrangement. Also, what is the temperament of the Nigerian politician? Would he ever stand on the side of the rule of law and resist the temptation to bend the rules in his own interest? These are issues that  are germane to the democratic process but are not covered in strict terms by the enabling laws. As for the drama in Zamfara: I do not think it is over politically for Mahdi Ali Gusau. By removing him, Matawalle may have unwittingly, with his own hands, laid the red carpet for his ascendancy in politics. 

It is noteworthy that this year’s International Women’s Day, March 8, that is today, will be marked against the background of  blatant misogyny and retrogressive patriarchy at the 9^th National Assembly of Nigeria. The theme for this year’s celebration is “Gender Equality for a Sustainable Tomorrow: Time to Break the Bias.  Women play a significant role in every part of our lives – the family, climate change, agriculture, the economy and basic human relationships. In Nigeria, women constitute about 50% of the population, any form of discrimination against that substantial part of the population would amount to a reduction of the country’s capacity and an act of bias. Nigeria is a signatory to major international conventions and treaties on the Empowerment of women, including protocols to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women, or the Gender Equality Strategy 2022 – 2025. It is a fact that Nigeria publicly endorses these protocols, but without understanding the import of the same commitments.     

The other week, during the National Assembly’s review of clauses relating to women empowerment in Nigeria, the lawmakers rejected the bills that are meant to further promote inclusion with regard to gender rights. These include the right of women to have their foreign spouses become Nigerian citizen; a proposal for women to claim their husband’s states of origin as theirs after five years of marriage, 35 % affirmative action for women in political parties and in appointive positions in government.  The original Bill proposed by Hon. Nkiruka Onyejocha representing Isikwuato/Umuaneochi Federal Constituency also asked that additional seats should be created for women at the National Assembly – 37 in the Senate and 74 in the House of Representatives and one additional seat exclusively for women in the State House of Assembly. The lawmakers didn’t think these were important proposals. Rather, they voted for the re-affirmation of patriarchy. Currently the National Assembly has 5% female representation. Out of the 109 members in the Senate, only seven are women. In the House of Representatives, there are 12 women out of 360 members. Nigeria has never had a female Governor except Mrs Virgy Etiaba who became Governor briefly only because the incumbent Governor, Peter Obi was once impeached in Anambra State.

Should anyone be surprised?  This is the same National Assembly where a lawmaker once paraded his four wives, and introduced them to the Assembly one after the other, to prove the point that he is a very capable man. The same lawmaker would return later to announce the birth of his child No. 28 and how fertile and prolific his wives are. He demanded that his house should be declared a polling booth because by 2023, if he so wishes, he would have produced up to 30 children! Indeed, this is the same National Assembly where the lawmakers have consistently rejected any Bill that is against child marriages and the rights of the girl-child.  In February, the wife of the President, Mrs Aisha Buhari and a retinue of women including the Minister of Women Affairs, Pauline Tallen, visited the National Assembly to lobby for a productive and progressive amendment in support of gender equality. The wife of the Vice President, Mrs Dolapo Osinbajo also followed suit, a day after. But the lawmakers could not be swayed. They do not think that there is a need to break any bias against women.  Ironically, Nigerian women are often blamed for their own woes.

On March 2, Nigerian women stormed the National Assembly carrying placards in protest. Today, in commemoration of the International Women’s Day, they have further organized a one million women march in protest. They want to “Break the Constitutional Bias, and Break the Political Bias”. They have my support. 

For Nigerians, the crisis in Ukraine is not far away at all. It is next door, in fact it may be said that the war is having a major effect in many Nigerian homes and families. This is not about crude oil, the spot price of which has gone beyond $100 per barrel, and the same government that relies on crude oil receipts is now saying this is tragic for the country. This is not even about the geo-politics of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict. Russia does not want the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) setting up a military base at its door step – in Ukraine, Sweden or Finland, or anywhere near Russia. The more urgent concern and this is our departure point, is the humanitarian crisis that the failure of diplomacy and the inequity in international relations has generated in the Eastern border of Europe. Since the crisis began, I have listened with great concern to the anguish of friends, former colleagues and their family relations calling, sending messages, to report how they are affected by the war in Ukraine. A former colleague during my tour of duty at the Presidential Villa has three children in Ukraine. His sister’s son is also there. They are all hunkered down in a shelter.

My friend says he and his wife and sister are permanently on the phone trying to monitor the welfare of their children. All four – my friend’s 3 and his sister’s only son- are all studying Medicine in Ukraine. Many Nigerian families send their children to Ukraine to study Medicine, Computer Engineering, and the Sciences. Out of the 10, 000 medical doctors produced by Ukraine annually, about a third are Nigerians.  The fees are affordable compared to the arm and a leg that Western Universities demand. Ukraine is also developed with strong education, science, agriculture, and engineering sectors. Historically, it was the strongest of the units that made up the Soviet Union. In contemporary times, it remains a very resourceful country with enormous strength in minerals, agriculture and science. Apart from the medical students from Nigeria, there are others studying in other fields. There is even a Nigerian church in Kiev, led by Pastor Sunday Adelaja. In total, there is probably close to 20, 000 Nigerians or more in Ukraine. Pastor Sunday Adelaja has managed to abandon the congregation and escape (he says Putin is looking for him as a target!), but the majority of Nigerians, and other Africans, are stranded. Their agony and the frustration of their families should constitute an important part of the review.

In the age of globalization, democracy and free choice, it would make no sense to query why some people leave their countries and travel to other places to find meaning and fulfilment. The history of humanity is based on migrations across geography and seasons. Nigerians in particular are extremely peripatetic. In the most remote places of the world, you are bound to find a Nigerian, studying, teaching, driving a cab, doing security work, serving in an international capacity, running a corner shop, playing football, or comfortably married with a family. But in the case of Ukraine, most of the Nigerian nationals out there are students or religious workers. Whereas it is a status symbol for an average Nigerian family to send their children abroad for studies, it is also the truth  that despite the fact that Nigeria has over 100 universities, many families send their children abroad because it is easier to get admissions into foreign universities if you can afford the fees, and you are at least sure that the university calendar will not be disrupted by teachers and other university staff who are perpetually on strike here in Nigeria, over unpaid salaries and allowances.

University students in Nigeria are also forever subjected to all forms of harassment: dirty halls of residence, the menace of oppressive lecturers who sell handouts, and torment female students for sex, and a general community outside the campus that inflicts mental torture on everyone. Parents therefore try to insulate their children from the psychosis in the land, at least for a period in their lives. To keep their children in good schools, many parents sell property, take loans, or save towards the same investment and if that option is not achievable, they look for other means. I doubt if any Nigerian parent would ever imagine that with all that, their child or children would end up in a war zone. But that is what has happened in Ukraine. Many Nigerian parents took their cue from the 12 countries, including the UK, Egypt, Morocco, US, and India, that issued early travel advisories and asked their nationals to leave Ukraine immediately because it would only be a matter of days before Vladimir Putin would invade Ukraine, and hence, they pulled their children and families out. But then, it is not every family that is equally circumstanced. Air fares shot through the roof. And it is natural for a largely religious community to think that a miracle would happen. Ironically, one of the men preaching such miracles was the first to flee to safety! Fact: thousands of Nigerians are stranded in Ukraine.

They are victims not just of the confusion that the war has brought, but also racism, which worsens their plight. In the wake of the Russian invasion, the people of Ukraine began to flee towards safer neighbouring countries, especially Poland, Romania, Hungary and Moldova. Persons trooped to the train stations hoping to get a place on one of the vacation trains ferrying people to safety. Nobody knows when or for how long the trains would come. But when a train then shows up, there is gross discrimination. The co-ordinators of the flight from the turbulence insist that Ukrainians must board first, then children and women in that order! But the arrangement is not colour-blind. Africans are told to wait, and so there are many of them, sheltered in nearby buildings who do not know when it would be their turn. I saw a video showing a Nigerian whose pregnant wife managed to get onto the train, and he was disallowed from getting on board. It was painful watching him screaming: “Give me my wife! Give me my wife!” 

War may be the legacy that past ages bequeath to us, as Wole Soyinka points out in A Dance of the Forests, humanity being in a perpetual state of conflict across the ages, but as we have seen in the writings of Sun-Tzu (The Art Of War), Carl von Clausewitz (About War) and Raymond Aron (Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations) on the subject, and as the experience of previous wars show (World War I, II, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Nigerian Civil War etc), there is simply nothing good about war. Nobody wins, everyone loses; it is only the degree that differs.  The crisis in Ukraine has thus thrown up all the key divisions in international relations at both the person to person levels and at the bilateral, multilateral, geo-political levels to remind us all that whereas there is a body called the United Nations, created after World War II to bind the world together, the world remains divided, the people in it do not like each other and that international relations based on the principles of jus cogens, including the sovereign equality of states, enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter (1945), is at best a myth in reality.

There has been so much talk about human equality, a societa humana in this regard, but even human beings within the international order, do not regard themselves as equals. International law practitioners have tried to provide a linkage in terms of the alignment of sovereign equality with human equality through the UN Resolution on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P, 2005). In the situation that we are currently witnessing in Ukraine, the host community is struggling to defend itself in an unequal match against Russia. It cannot even protect its own citizens. A humanitarian crisis is afoot, with Poland, Moldova, Hungary, much smaller countries dragged into an extremely difficult situation. The Polish Ambassador to Nigeria has had to deny that Poland does not want to help stranded Nigerians. Where host communities fail to discharge their responsibilities to protect foreign nationals in their country, in the event of war and chaos, what should the home countries of the affected persons do? They are bound by the same principle. 

The Nigerian Government has been criticized heavily for its failures in terms of citizen diplomacy in the face of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the fact that many Nigerians are trapped in the crossfire. From Kiev to Abuja, the Nigeria foreign policy machinery behaved as if its carburetor had issues. It failed to fire the engine correctly.  The machinery abandoned the Nigerians in Ukraine even while other countries openly helped theirs and gave specific travel advisories. When the blow-out occurred, the Nigerian Embassy in Kiev issued a statement in which the officials told Nigerians in Ukraine, that if they find the situation “morally disturbing”, they should make private arrangements to keep safe, make sure they have their consular documents in place and should they wish to return, the Embassy would be available to assist with consular duties. What kind of talk was that? Is it possible not to find a war situation “emotionally disturbing?”

This caused some outrage and in the face of that, the Embassy in Kiev immediately circulated another statement it had issued on January 26, to the Nigerian community in Ukraine, but really there is no difference between the first and the second intervention. Nigerians in Ukraine were simply told that “they are on their own”  in the following exact words: “Nigerians are hereby further advised to take their individual and collective safety and security very seriously, avoid unnecessary travels within the country, especially to identified hotspots in Eastern Ukraine; and ensure that they carry requisite identification at all times”. The Embassy says it would make periodic announcements and offer consular services available where necessary. Both the National Association of Nigerian Students in Ukraine (NANS-Ukraine) and Nigerians students in distress have spoken up (including Anjola-Oluwa Ero-Phillips) to declare that every effort to get the Nigerian Embassy to help them failed. Ms Eunice Eleaka, President of NANS-Ukraine, whose parents managed to evacuate before the blow-out had to send an urgent SOS message to President Muhammadu Buhari. The outrage that has greeted the mishandling of the Ukrainian crisis by the Nigerian Government is in order.

It has now resulted in a flurry of last minute activities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs after expressing surprise that there was an issue in Ukraine (apparently the only government agency in the world that is surprised, even with the Western allies raising the alarm, weeks earlier, that an invasion was imminent), decided to summon G7 ambassadors in Nigeria, and the Ambassadors of Poland, Russia and Ukraine. The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission also woke up and started offering advice, backed by phone numbers and escape routes out of Ukraine into Poland. Nigeria also put up the equivalent of “small yansh diplomacy”, telling Russia to pull out of Ukraine and respect the international order. The best that African countries can do in this matter is spineless diplomatic twerking, to use a more decent phrase, so they should not deceive themselves, but they can do more in terms of helping their stranded citizens who are trapped in the crossfire. Nigeria’s House of Representatives did well by making the crisis a matter of urgent public importance, and resolving to send to Ukraine forthwith, the House Majority Leader and the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to bring home stranded Nigerians in Ukraine. We would like a feedback on that. Did they travel? Are they back? How did the intervention of the House help?          

It is perhaps selfish, to express concern more about the plight of our compatriots in Ukraine. Indeed, it is the whole of humanity that faces a problem. And the people of Ukraine will bear the brunt of their country being turned into the battle ground for the politics between Russia and NATO and the balance of power in the world. It would be a while before Ukraine recovers from the storm that has fallen on its roof. Its people have been displaced. The country has been thrown into turmoil. Age-old animosities between the Russian speaking Eastern parts and other groups have been re-ignited setting fire to the Minsk Agreement in Belarus, 2014. Vladimir Putin may be accused of all kinds of atrocities, and he is probably guilty, but the US and the allies are not particularly innocent either. NATO says it welcomes all countries that are interested in joining it. Putin’s Russia insists that there was a promise by NATO not to expand East-wards but since then it has added 14 new members. Putin hates the Alliance and does not want it anywhere near Russia. Those who know the story argue that the agreement of September 1990 referred to East Germany and not the whole of the East, but isn’t Putin right to argue that any further enlargement is a threat to the sovereignty of Russia? He is aggrieved because he knows that the intentions of the Allies are not necessarily holy. Has anyone thought of the Monroe Doctrine, and the 1962 US Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, the Gulf War, the attack on Libya, and the cross-current details?

The Allies have imposed sanctions, from sports to SWIFT, making Putin and Russia look like they have just walked into a trap. What is the end-game then? Could it be to cripple Russia and create rebellion inside the Kremlin and get Putin out of the way?  The Russians probably have that figured out. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov says: “The Western sanctions on Russia are hard, but our country has the necessary potential to compensate the damage”. It is the world that will suffer in the end, and as the agony of Nigerians connected with Ukraine has shown, there is a lot more beyond gas prices, higher inflationary rates, the clout of a divided UN Security Council and economic sanctions, with greater cost better measured in human terms. 

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 12:00pm

Guests: Kayode Ajulo (Principal Partner of Kayode Ajulo & co. Castle of law) &
Samson Itodo (Executive Director, YIAGA AFRICA)

Topic: Electoral Act 2022

Date: Saturday, February 26, 2022

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206

Hopefully, by the time this commentary is in print, on February 22, 2022, President Muhammadu Buhari should have given his assent to the re-amended Electoral Act Amendment Bill which was transmitted to him on January 31, 2022. If so, the President would have laid to rest all speculations and conspiracy theories as to why he does not want to sign the Bill or the possibility of what happened ahead of the 2019 elections repeating itself. If the President does not sign the Bill into law, however, he would raise concerns about his commitment to leaving a legacy of credible elections behind and would deepen tension and uncertainties within the polity. The President does not need the stress. It is in everyone’s best interest for him to grant his assent. He can subsequently send further amendments to the National Assembly as he did with the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) and the Appropriation Act 2022. In 2018, President Buhari rejected the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act 2010, four times, citing as justification - all kinds of irregularities, including drafting issues, sequence of elections, and even the phrasing of words in parts of the then proposed Bill.

In the end, no amendments took place and Nigerians went into the 2019 general election with the same old electoral framework that stakeholders wanted the legislature to amend. The final excuse given by the government in 2019 was that there would be no time to effect the amendments before the general elections whereas it was the back-and-forth over the granting of assent that was the problem. After the 2019 elections, the process of amending the Electoral Act began afresh under the 9^th National Assembly. In November last year, an amended Electoral Act Bill was forwarded to the President for his assent. Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides for a window of 30 days within which the President can grant assent or withhold it, and in the event of the latter he can be vetoed by the National Assembly.

The President exhausted the entire 30-day window only to object to the National Assembly’s restriction of political parties to direct primary as the mode of selecting candidates for elections by political parties. He cited insecurity, the cost of conducting direct primaries and infringement on the rights of Nigerians to participate in governance as reasons. He promised that if this could be reviewed to allow for both direct and indirect primaries, he would grant his assent. The National Assembly threatened to veto the President, but it did no such thing. Instead the National Assembly reviewed the contentious Clause 84 of the Electoral Bill (originally Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010), and replaced direct primaries, with an option of direct primaries, indirect primaries and consensus candidacy with a strict definition of what constitutes consensus and the other two options. The Committee of the Whole of the National Assembly then decided to insert in Clause 84, a provision that any one holding a political office  - Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers and others - must relinquish such a position before he or she can be eligible to participate in the Electoral process either as a candidate or as a delegate. Previously, government appointees and political office holders could serve as delegates, go into elections, lose and then return to their jobs.  In other words, the National Assembly modified and went beyond the President’s request.

The newspapers reported yesterday that the President wants this Clause removed before he can grant his assent. He reportedly met with the leadership of the National Assembly over the weekend. Some APC Governors are also said to be uncomfortable with this, as well as the definition of consensus by the national legislature and they are purportedly putting pressure on the President not to grant his assent. This is the main source of agitation and concern among Nigerians who think that an old, familiar script is about to be played out again. If the President does not grant assent, the Bill goes back to the National Assembly, the lawmakers would huff and puff, then they would re-amend the law again and add new things for effect, transmit the new twice re-amended Bill to the President, he or the Governors would again pick issues with some Clauses, wait till the last minute to register objections and then the process would begin again until time and resources would have been wasted.

This is the mischief that concerned Nigerians do not want. The objection to Clause 84 as phrased is that it automatically infringes upon the fundamental rights of political office holders to participate in the electoral process and it is to that extent illegal.  What has not been pointed out is that the same Clause 84 allows any aggrieved person under that Section to approach the Federal High Courts to seek redress. Whereas Clause 84 may not derive directly from the public hearings conducted ahead of the Electoral Act Amendment process, it stands to reason that the express objective is to create a level playing field for everyone who takes part in the party nomination or candidate selection process. Hitherto, political office holders use government resources and access to state privileges to dominate party primaries within the ruling party. They are also ready tools in the hands of their principals, especially the Governors. They are expected to do the masters’ bidding since in any case they need the opportunity to return to where they came from if they fail in their bid. I see no problem with Clause 84, as it provides a recourse to the courts, and ensures a level playing field for all parties involved.

The other issue is the fear that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would be left with no option than to change the dates for the 2023 elections if the President does not sign the Electoral Bill as proposed by February 22, 2022. For now, INEC is yet to issue guidelines for the conduct of the 2023 general elections on the grounds that it is waiting for a new Electoral Act. According to Section 28(1) of the proposed Electoral Act 2022, INEC is required to issue a notice of election not later than 360 days before the appointed date for an election. INEC has since scheduled the 2023 Presidential and National Assembly Elections for February 18, 2023. To meet up with that provision and date, the deadline is February 22, 2022. So, whereas the President still has up till March 2, by virtue of Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution to sign the Electoral Amendment Bill, if he fails to do so, by today, February 22, INEC would be forced to reschedule the 2023 elections, or at best, use the extant law, which is the Electoral Act 2010.  Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) object to such a possibility. It is not only the 2023 general elections that would be affected. Off-cycle elections in Ekiti and Osun states too. The investment in coming up with an Electoral Act Amendment Bill would have been wasted and all the more positive sides of the Bill would have been discarded needlessly.

Hence, about 26 civil society organizations have threatened to embark on a protest today. They insist that President Buhari must sign the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 as a “matter of urgent national importance.” I can’t immediately think of any other piece of legislation that has generated this level of intentionality in recent memory. Civil Society Partners on Electoral Reform, the umbrella group of the CSOs argue that Clause 84 is not a problem, it can be amended at any time but there are more important provisions in the Bill that must not be thrown away. Enough is Enough (EiE) one of the CSOs, identified these critical provisions in an advertorial titled “Top Provisions in the Electoral Bill, 2022” at page 53 of ThisDay newspaper on Sunday, February 20, 2022.  EiE argues that “Granting Presidential assent to the Electoral Bill 2022 on or before February 22, 2022 is in the best interest of our electoral democracy. Any amendments can be sent to the National Assembly later.”

According to Enough is Enough (EiE), we should not throw away the baby with the bath water, for the following reason that we need to be reminded of: 1. Clause 3(3) – early release of election funds to INEC. Indeed if all funds required for a general election are released a year ahead, INEC would be more financially independent. 2. Clause 50: Electronic transmission of results. This again is in order. Nigerians have always asked for electronic transmission of results to prevent fraud and manipulation. 3. Clause 65: Power to Review Election Results Declared Under Duress. This particular clause truly empowers the INEC. There are persons who became Governors in this country simply because there was no clause such as this in the extant Electoral Act, thus subjecting the electorate to the excruciating impact of a stolen mandate. 4. Clause 8(5): Political Neutrality of INEC Personnel. Here, it is proposed that any INEC official who is affiliated to a political party if caught, is liable on conviction to a fine of N5m or imprisonment for two years or both. This is a very essential provision. Too many electoral officials, including INEC, security personnel and ad hoc staff are embedded partisan gladiators. They help to thumb-print ballot papers. For a fee, they switch results. This particular provision puts them on notice that there are consequences for bad conduct. For far too long they have been getting away with sheer impunity. 5. Clause 47:  Legalizing Electronic Accreditation of Voters. Nigerians have been clamouring for this: how technology can be used to upgrade the Nigerian electoral system. INEC may have introduced some technology in form of Smart Card Readers and Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) in previous elections but because these are not provided for in the extant Electoral Act, they have been declared inadmissible by the courts in a number of cases.   

Otherwise, Alex Otti of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) would have been Governor of Abia State in 2015. He won at the Court of Appeal when he challenged the 2015 Abia State Gubernatorial election victory awarded to Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Ikpeazu was removed. But Alex Otti later lost at the Supreme Court in part, because there was no provision for electronic accreditation or the use of smart card readers in the enabling law. The ruling of the Court of Appeal was accordingly set aside on technical grounds. Clause 47 in the proposed Bill would make electronic accreditation admissible as evidence, and help check fraud and manipulation.  6. Clause 54 (2) - Inclusion of Persons with Disability. If nothing else moves President Buhari to sign the Electoral Bill 2022, into law, this should. This is about the rights of persons living with Disability and it is a matter of public record that it was President Buhari that signed the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons Living With Disabilities into Law in 2019. He should be seen to be more interested in their inclusion, not the rights of political office holders pursuing selfish interests and their own stomachs. 7. Clause 51: Redefined Over-voting – Great provision. Only the total number of accredited voters at a polling unit will determine the validity of the voters. Hitherto, nobody paid enough attention to this. Nigeria is a country where ghosts show up on election day, including ghosts from other countries as far away as Brazil and they vote and their votes are made to count. 8. Clause 29 (1): early conduct of party primaries and submission of list of candidates. The thing speaks for itself here and it is better to quote the EiE statement: “Every political party shall, not later than 180 days (-6 months) prior to election day, submit the list of its candidates, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party, to INEC”.

Nigeria must be one of those strange countries where the electorate doesn’t even have the opportunity to know the candidates in an election. Some political parties boast that if they put up a goat as candidate, Nigerians would vote for that goat without knowing, because the extant law weighs more heavily on the mandate of political parties. It is important that Nigerians begin to know the candidates well in advance. 9: Clause 94 – Early Commencement of Campaigns. In this section, political parties now have more time for campaigns, from 90 days to 150 days before polling day and 24 hours before election day. This is likely to increase the cost of campaigns but on a positive note, it provides the electorate a better opportunity to know the aspirant or candidate. Finally, 10: Clause 34 – Substitution of Candidate in the event of Death in an election. This is to correct the debacle in Kogi State about succession under such circumstances, following the death of Alhaji Abubakar Audu of the APC, in 2015.

It may be argued that all things taken together, the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 is the most comprehensive and pragmatic effort that the National Assembly of Nigeria has embarked upon since it was resolved that having a credible electoral framework is crucial for the integrity of elections and the leadership recruitment process. The issues identified by EiE are practical responses to the realities of the Nigerian electoral experience, as distilled by stakeholders, processed by the legislature, and codified into legislation to raise the quality of Nigeria’s democracy. Whatever anyone may have said to President Buhari about Clause 84, relevant as it is to the interest of a self-seeking, alimental minority, the feelings of the larger majority, and the future of Nigeria’s democracy, should be more important to him. President Buhari should be more interested in keeping his promise that he intends to leave Nigeria’s electoral framework better than he met it. He has nothing to lose for doing so. He would be remembered for moving the needle forward in the direction of public good. The dilly-dallying notwithstanding, INEC also cannot give the excuse that it is waiting on the President. Irrespective of the extant law, arrangements should be made for the next elections. When the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 is eventually passed, necessary adjustments can be made. INEC, by conduct or inaction, passive or otherwise, must not give credence to the speculation that it may be part of a hidden agenda to compromise the democratic process. The President must be encouraged to leave a legacy of just and credible elections that he himself can be proud of.  Mr. President, sign the Bill. History should not repeat itself.  

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 11:45am

Guest: Joe Ajaero (Deputy President, Nigeria Labour Congress)

Topic: Fuel Scarcity: What happened?

Date: Saturday, February 19, 2022

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206