We have so diminished value and character in Nigeria, such that no matter the demeanor, all a culprit needs is a band of chorus men if not hypocrites praising instead of rebuking him. The latest is the accolade of purported statesmanship being heaped on outgoing President Goodluck Jonathan despite his desperate conduct in the 2015 presidential elections.
To start with, we must acknowledge the fact that anybody privileged to become the country’s first citizen instantly becomes a statesman but what will determine his merit and indeed his character is what he displays as statesmanship. In short, a statesman may not necessarily have the attributes of statesmanship.
Looking back now, those who tried in the law courts to stop President Jonathan from contesting the 2015 elections, even if against the constitution, were not being fair to ordinary Nigerians. Had the litigants succeeded, Nigerians and the whole world would have been denied the privilege of knowing who really is Jonathan. But the 2015 elections revealed Jonathan’s desperation to retain political power despite his public assurances to the contrary. Is such desperation part of statesmanship?
A convenient excuse was found in the palpable ignorance that Jonathan’s congratulatory message or concession of victory to General Muhammadu Buhari was the first time in Nigeria’s history. Jonathan gesture is indisputably remarkable. But there ends the appreciation. After losing the 1956 west regional general elections to Obafemi Awolowo’s Action Group, his staunch political rival, NCNC’s Nnamdi Azikiwe wrote an open letter of congratulations to Awo.
Then last year after the Ekiti State elections, defeated Governor Kayode Fayemi made a television broadcast to the people and admitted defeat. So what was the big deal about Jonathan’s concession of victory?
Most irritating was the false impression being spread that by his gesture, Jonathan saved Nigeria from political and constitutional crisis. That’s untrue. Instead, Jonathan saved himself from political and constitutional disaster. Did he have any choice? Definitely not after Jonathan saw his ill-planned strategies for staying in power collapse one after another.
Over two years ago, Jonathan flew a kite to nowhere in particular when he assured that despite being the most criticized Nigerian leader in history, he would eventually be the most celebrated. With that part indication that he might not run for second term, it was quite within his constitutional right to change his mind except that Jonathan did not learn from history.
After the assassination of American President John Kennedy in 1963, he was succeeded by Vice-President Lyndon Johnson who then in 1964 (like Jonathan in 2011) contested the presidency but ran into political crisis over the Vietnam war, which he inherited from his deceased predecessor, John Kennedy.
President Lyndon Johnson, unlike Nigeria’s President Jonathan, correctly read the mood of the public and voluntarily decided not to run for second term. That was statesmanship. In contrast, even if Jonathan was not aware that he had become unpopular and could not win the elections, the media in Nigeria and abroad did much to acquaint him with his hopeless position.
In fact, BBC correspondent in Nigeria pitifully asked Jonathan if he thought he could win the election and Jonathan answered confidently. The BBC correspondent further prodded Jonathan why he thought he would win the elections and the Nigerian President said his party, the PDP had a branch in every corner of Nigeria.
Was that a basis for being re-elected for another four years? Actually, Jonathan was relying on a so-called incumbency, completely away from reality of political situation in the country. Such illusion is partly responsible for the hypocrisy that in accepting the result of the elections, Jonathan saved Nigeria from constitutional crisis. Otherwise, why for the second time within five years should Jonathan be remotely at the centre of a political crisis? Last time also, for the sake of Jonathan, Nigerian constitution had to be mutilated for a dubious doctrine of necessity to smuggle Jonathan into the Presidency.
Where was the same doctrine of necessity when three state governors Dambaba Suntai (Taraba) Liyel Imoke (Cross River) and Sullivan Chime (Enugu) were abroad for medical treatment lasting over six months? Why were their deputies not sworn in to replace them?
That aside, in his determination to retain political power, President Jonathan was involved directly and indirectly in acts that were not statesmanlike from the beginning to the end. There was the gentleman’s agreement even confirmed by his major political mentor, former President Olusegun Obasanjo that Jonathan would run for only one term. Quite bad that such an agreement was breached but it was even more dishonourable to have demanded any written agreement to that effect. Such dishonour clearly stained even a merit thereafter for statesmanship.
For encouraging known financial criminals moreso facing trials in law courts to seek safe haven in hurried membership of PDP to the extent of having their cases in courts suspended, withdrawn or poorly prosecuted in an era of widespread corruption in society, President Jonathan does not deserve any accolade for statesmanship.
For a repeat, Jonathan’s eventual acceptance of defeat in the 2015 presidential elections was self-serving to save his neck, left with no choice. The election he conducted was, at every stage never geared towards peaceful change of government. Rather, the plan was to perpetuate himself and his party in office. Yet, nowhere in the world would any government of Jonathan’s administration in the past three years have earned a new mandate.
The determination and vigilance of Nigerians for a new government were unmistakable and freely expressed. In return, Nigerians were provoked and threatened with political pranks capable in the past not only in Nigeria but some other parts of the world of triggering military intervention.
Anyway, was that not exactly the plan? And for that, Jonathan is being pampered for a purported statesmanship? Does statesmanship come that cheaply? Only in Nigeria! President Jonathan (through his henchman Doyin Okupe) both at Abuja and London dared that General Muhammadu Buhari would never administer Nigeria and that if he (Jonathan) lost the elections, he would rather handover to the Armed Forces instead of Buhari. That was after Nigerians would have elected their new President. Till now, Jonathan never denied or disowned Doyin Okupe’s statement.
Is that part of statesmanship? Nigerians stood their ground and sent Jonathan packing. Have we stopped for a moment to consider the anarchy inherent in the threat of Jonathan to ignore election results and plunge the Armed Forces into politics against their will? Armed Forces would be divided on line of action in such unsolicited situation and struggle for survival of the fittest. The nearest example would have been the disturbances in the Armed Forces in July 1966.
Statesmanship for a man who hired indefinite characters as devil’s advocates for postponement of elections for two years? Under what law? Jonathan was credited for dousing political tension. Who created the tension in the first place? That tension could not be separated from the consequences of the conduct of Jonathan’s group during the campaigns. Have we forgotten so soon? The campaign organization, or the utterances of Jonathan’s wife? Was Patience Jonathan the candidate?
Following the example of President Jonathan who said General Buhari could not remember ordinary phone number(s), Patience Jonathan described General Buhari as brain dead. Where in the civilized world do statesmen and their wives employ such low language in pursuit of political power?
Britain holds general elections in three weeks’ time and campaigns are in full swing. There is not tension in that country because of the civilised approach of Prime Minister David Cameron and opposition leader Ed Miliband. Have we heard Mrs. Cameron throughout the campaigns? Did we hear much of Michele Obama during her husband’s campaigns for re-election two years ago?
If ever, the contributions of the wives of the British and American leaders were never personal insults on their husbands’ respective opponents. Culture, good breeding and education are the hallmarks in such situations. Till now, Nigeria’s President Jonathan keeps quiet on his wife’s (mis?)conduct during the campaigns. Any control over the lady? Yet, talks of statesmanship?
Never in Nigeria’s political history had voters been treated to such dirty campaigns and repulsive campaigns expenses as Jonathan’s group displayed during the 2015 elections. Could that ever be part of statesmanship anywhere in the world?
And then the Orubebe affair! A supposed ex-Minister invaded the venue of election results and held INEC Chairman Attahiru Jega hostage with the ultimatum of suspension of further release of the results. Beamed live to the outside world through satellite television, the plan was to terminate the entire election process and throw Nigeria into political constitutional crisis.
Who is Orubebe? Jonathan’s party’s agent. Did he come from nowhere or did he act alone? The stage of the elections results the previous night indicated defeat for President Jonathan. The buck for that political terrorism therefore ended on Jonathan’s table.
To be rewarded with statesmanship?
Most unusually in election periods in Nigeria, former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s peace committee emerged with repeated visits to Aso Rock pleading for peaceful outcome of the elections. Only in Nigeria could such be rewarded with attributes of statesmanship. It is dangerous to elevate gross political misconduct into a rewarding act, or such precedent would be followed by others in the future.
There must not be the remotest idea of Mo Ibrahim’s award to Nigeria for the current political rascality or the prize would have been devalued.
While appreciating General Abdulsalami Abubakar and his peace committee colleagues, there was no way Nigerians could have been denied their choice of a new President. The fact is that Nigeria has a reputation of surviving every leadership no matter how self-assumingly seeming invincible.
Limit for erring politicians
Quite understandably, President-elect, General Muhammadu Buhari took his time throughout the campaigns, a posture of modesty which created the wrong impression that he is weak. Now, he is toughening up by acting firmly to stem the outflow of PDP members into APC, dignified as defection.
Very soon, only President Jonathan and few of his colleagues might remain in PDP. What suddenly happened to turn the party into a poison chamber from which everybody is escaping? Jonathan should now be seeing Nigerians for who they are, crass opportunists and traitors without abiding loyalty.
Where were they all along throughout the campaigns to the elections on March 28? Would the dubious elements have abandoned PDP for APC if Goodluck Jonathan had won the elections? General Buhari was therefore correct in his red signal that there is no room in his administration for the fleeing PDP members. In short, a political party has the right to limit its membership to only men and women of integrity and compatibility.
For the past 16 years, Nigerians of Middle-Belt origin claimed they are not core Northerners. Now with the election of General Buhari as the President, the Middle Belt political “asylum seekers” will return home.
General Buhari also said election offenders would be prosecuted. In particular, murderers among the offenders should be treated for their offence and executed if found guilty. The criminals took the lives of innocent fellow citizens mainly for political rivalry.
Now is the time to make the point that the murderers would not go unpunished. If up to five accused were found to have murdered one political rival, the law approves all the five to be executed. In 1953 under colonial era, 12 convicts were executed in Lagos for the murder of one preacher, Alfa Apalara. Also in 1958, many convicts were executed for the political murders that followed the death of Adegoke Adelabu, the popular Ibadan politician in a motor accident.
The law is the law and must be enforced.
