Jonathan Must Not Waste this Crisis

Simon Kolawole Live!, Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com

Question: How did President Goodluck Jonathan manage to rally the entire country against himself barely 24 hours into the New Year? Answer: He underestimated public reaction to a major public policy—the removal of fuel subsidy. And I’d like to be honest: even though I knew that removing the subsidy (or, more appropriately, fuel price hike) was always going to elicit negative public reaction, I never knew demonstrations would grow in monumental proportions by the day. Judging from past experiences, we thought the strike called by labour would be a huge success on the first day and then gradually peter out. After all, President Olusegun Obasanjo increased fuel prices nearly on a yearly basis until he left power in 2007 and the strikes and demonstrations were never as massive as what we’ve had so far.

But under Obasanjo, there was no twitter, no facebook and no blackberry as tools of mobilisation. There was no Arab Spring. There was no “occupy”. Things have changed dramatically over the years and it was Jonathan’s luck to be the first Nigerian leader to taste the bitter fury of social media-induced resentment. Apart from underestimating public reaction, Jonathan made the mistake of thinking that Nigerians have not changed. His advisers thought removing fuel subsidy was a pure technocratic decision to be taken without any serious consideration for the political backlash. They also did not do enough scenario-painting, such as who was likely to take advantage of the situation to whip up public sentiment against the government. They simply took a decision and expected a standing ovation from the citizens who are already confronted with soaring costs of living—electricity bills, toll gates, new driving licences, new number plates, and so on.

I laughed hysterically when the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) started grumbling that the opposition had hijacked the protests. Can anything be more naïve? What is the job of opposition? To project and protect the interest of the ruling party? Was PDP expecting the opposition to start defending and marketing deregulation? Watching the Republicans debate in the United States, you could see the candidates make deliberate efforts to blame President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party for all the woes of America, even when they knew that he was not the architect of the country’s misfortunes. But that is politics. You tell the people I am better and I have better policies than the man in power. At the last Republican debate, the candidates deliberately ignored newly released figures which showed that employment figures had improved, with additional 200,000 jobs created. That is politics.

My offering to Jonathan today is quite simple: don’t waste this crisis. He has a rare opportunity to listen to the people and take a broader and deeper look at the entire governance structure. Fuel subsidy sparked off the crisis, but a lot of messages have been passed across in the process and it would be tragic if Jonathan missed these signals and concentrates his energy on blaming the opposition for politicising the protests. The first message is that something is wrong with the marketing of deregulation. From what I have heard most of the commentators and activists say, deregulation in itself is not bad. However, it is just one aspect of the reform we need to carry out in order to reduce the cost structure in governance. This is a very important message. Governments, over the years, usually rushed to increase fuel prices without taking a global look at the hindrances to our development and how to make judicious use of our resources. Regulated pricing is the not only problem and deregulation is not the only solution. We need to see a larger picture of our fiscal nuisance if things would ever change in Nigeria.

What exactly is Jonathan’s deregulation strategy? That is a very important question. It is not enough to have a policy that will ultimately benefit Nigerians; it is also very important to manage the entire process methodically and get the buy-in of the stakeholders. The best economic policies that ignore political realities will suffer in the public arena. Now, are we looking at a one-year or two-year deregulation programme? How would it achieve results? How do we realistically encourage local refining? Or should we just hope deregulation would automatically force licensees to build refineries? What if they don’t build even after deregulation? What options are available to us? How do we address the issue of what to do with the existing refineries? Sell them or lease out the management? If licensees refuse to build under any guise, should there be an interventionist strategy by the Federal Government? Or should we continue to rely on importation for ever?

Furthermore, in achieving the objective of deregulation, are we going to remove subsidy 50 per cent now, show the people what we have done with the savings and then remove the remaining subsidy later? In the meantime, how do we cut the rot and clean up the subsidy regime? How do we deal with those who have abused the subsidy regime over the years? What is the overall government engagement strategy for deregulation? How do we get the critical stakeholders to make constructive inputs rather than just dump the policy on them and expect them to simply fall in line? What is the communication strategy? What is the exit strategy if it doesn’t work out as expected? In public policy, these are critical questions that can only improve the quality of planning and implementation. Those who think the public have no right to make any input into the policy process are deluded; good governance is best attained when the co-operation of the different publics is gained through mutual trust and respect. If the key stakeholders had been part and parcel of the deregulation process—not just calling them to a meeting and presenting a fait accompli to them—resistance would not have been on this scale.

The second message—and the most important one for that matter—is: how do we reduce waste and corruption in government? We keep saying the citizens should sacrifice, but does it make sense for the Federal Government alone to spend N1.3 trillion on personnel costs every year (I don’t have the figures for states)? As many analysts have pointed out, do we need 43 ministers? Does every minister need four aides? Do we need 469 federal lawmakers, each entitled to aides and what have you? When I was growing up, I used to hear of Minister of Information, Youth, Sports and Culture—just one person. Today, it has become four ministries, each with the full compliments of bureaucracy! Why? How has that improved governance in Nigeria? Is that not why costs keep going up? Also, can’t we have four or five senators per state and abolish the House of Representatives entirely? Do we need both the Senate and House of Representatives? Can’t we make do with just 20 ministers?

I am aware that the Jonathan administration is trying to merge some departments and agencies, but the fact remains that it is never going to be far-reaching enough. By appointing 43 ministers, Jonathan had already lost the opportunity to make a statement that he wanted a lean government, that he wanted a break from the past. It would have been easier for the president to preach sacrifice to Nigerians if he had taken concrete steps to reduce waste and corruption in government all along. The message of sacrifice would have been better received by the populace. Many have suggested that we should reduce the number of aircraft in the presidential fleet, which is a perfect suggestion. Also, most governors take chartered flights. I can’t remember the last time I was on a flight with a governor on board. Some governors even built airports specifically to be able to take chartered flights to their states. These are wastes. Some governors appoint scores and hundreds of aides who do nothing than deplete the treasury. We need to perform surgery on all these wastes.

President Jonathan has a very good crisis in his hands. He has to decide what he wants to do with it. He can seize this rare opportunity in the nation’s history to propose wholesome changes in the way we do our things in Nigeria. He has been talking about constitution review and has even empanelled a body for that matter. The sections that we now have to seriously consider for amendment have been pointed out by the people. Everything to cut the size of government at every level must be built into the new constitution. This crisis must not be wasted.

And Four Other Things...

‘Diesel Refinery’
I guess my reference to “a refinery to produce diesel” in my article last week got a lot of people confused. This is my point: diesel was deregulated seven years ago by President Olusegun Obasanjo; same for aviation fuel. The whole idea, we were told, was to encourage investment in refineries. Meanwhile, petrol and kerosene were still regulated, meaning government was still paying subsidies to make up for the loss by marketers. It follows, doesn’t it, that enough had been done to encourage building of refineries? I mean, you could set up a refinery, sell diesel and aviation fuel at market prices, and then collect subsidies for petrol and kerosene which were still regulated.

In a nutshell, you would not be making any losses, even without deregulation! With all these incentives, nobody still built a refinery. Therefore, deregulation is not the magic wand. We need to find out why investors run away even when the prices are guaranteed by government through subsidies. My sense is that it is cheaper and easier to engage in fuel importation and make your margins immediately than to spend $1 billion to build a refinery that would take years before you recoup your investment.

Occupying with Champagne
The ‘Occupy Nigeria’ movement that emerged after the removal of fuel subsidy came in many colours. At Ojota, Lagos, the crowds kept growing day by day, defying all predictions that protests only last for a few hours in Nigeria. Doctors volunteered free treatment. A cousin of mine took 10 bags of “pure water” and distributed them free of charge at the venue. Many Nigerians from the middle class took active part, trekking lengths to take part in the protests. An in-law told me on phone: “Simon, it’s not that I can’t afford N141 per litre but the government must cut down on wastes too! This is the time to take back Nigeria!” The organisers took several steps ahead of the government. Musicians came to give free entertainment. Activists took turns to address the people. I will never forget, however, the story that the wealthy also took part in the Ikoyi rally. After making known their opposition to the deregulation policy, they settled down to bottles of champagne. Unsubsidised champagne, that is.

‘Hacktivists’ at Work
Last Friday, some “hacktivists”—those who specialise in hacking websites as a sign of public protest—threatened to hit the website of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). A few hours later, they succeeded in putting out a press release that members of the “fuel subsidy cabal” had been arrested by the agency. Incredibly, the statement was “signed” by Femi Babafemi, who left the agency along with the former chairman, Mrs Farida Waziri. What’s more, two of the people that were said to have been arrested were actually not in the country. One was in Ghana, another in London. Yet EFCC was said to have arrested them! It reminded me very much of the mischief that was circulated three years ago. They said President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua would resign after a “carbinate” reshuffle. The story was attributed to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN). It is so easy to pick holes in these things sometimes.

Falana on Oil Revenue
A blackberry message was being circulated yesterday. It was attributed to activist and lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana. It read: “1. Crude oil productn/day-2.5m barrels; 2. Current price= $113/barrel; 3. daily sales= 2.5m x 113= $282.5 million; 4. Monthly sales= 282.5 million x 30 days= $8.475 billion; 5. Yearly sales= $8.475 billion x 12= $101.7 billion; 6. Naira equivalent =101.7 billion x $160=16.272 trillion naira per year. 7. Nigeria's budget for 2012 = 4.5 trillion naira. Now the question is: Where is the surplus going?!” I’m not too sure this came from Falana, because this figure completely ignores the budgets of 36 states and 774 local government areas which also come from the oil revenue. Neither is the foreign reserve taken into consideration.

LAMIDO SANUSI WRITES ON NASIR ELRUFAI. INTERESTING READ

  

By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
I have one request to make and Allah is my helper. Any attack on Nasir el Rufai or on Nuhu Ribadu is an attack on me. Nasir is to my mind is one of the greatest and most patriotic Nigerians to have served in public office and he is by far the best FCT minister we have ever had. Like all of us he is not perfect.
In my AIT interview I said I agreed with 90% of what he said a day before our interview and the two bits I didn’t agree with I stated: I don’t agree that there is no subsidy and I believe Nasir was quoting contributions from tHrusted experts which have been flying around recently including Prof Tam David West.
And we have debated this issue of accounting and economic concepts in this forum. I also do not agree that it is easy in the short-term to have massive fiscal retrenchment without a huge political backlash-indeed the fuel subsidy is one such case and retrenchment for instance would also bring people out.
But Nasir is one person for whom I have always had the highest level of personal respect. His integrity is beyond reproach-of course, people will say anything but after years of trying no one is yet able to show any evidence backing up allegations. Intellectually, I am yet to know anyone who can match him and this has been the case since the 1970s. Femi Fani-Kayode has written in Nasir’s defence but these are not Nasir’s words and if you knew Femi well you would not be surprised or bothered by his peculiar choice of language. I have seen Femi transit from a rabid ethnic chauvinist and christian fanatic who thought Obasanjo was a stooge of the backward Muslim north, to a minister in Obasanjo’s cabinet preaching national unity, and now to some freelance activist and public commentator.
This is just a stage he is going through but I like to think he means well. When AIT requested me to speak they never said it was to respond to Nasir and when we started and they played their clip we told them we didn’t want to personalise this. Nasir and I were friends and brothers as teenagers. We have remained friends and brothers and will remain
friends after office.
We don’t have to agree 100%. He also understands that so long as I am in government I have 100% loyalty to the president. If I feel I cannot be loyal I should step down. This does not mean supporting every policy but it means standing up to play my part in doing what is good for the economy.
I, therefore, request please that no one defending me should attack his person. And only those who don’t know Nasir will even think I am his intellectual match- he is just exceptional in his brilliance.

SUBSIDY MADE SIMPLE

SUBSIDY MADE SIMPLE aka SMS): Pastor 'Tunde Bakare delivered this expose on Fuel Subsidy at The Latter Rain Assembly a few hours ago. Please read, digest, and share with as many people as you can. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! 1) DEFINITION To subsidise is to sell a product below the cost of production. Since the federal government has been secretive about the state of our refineries and their production capacity, we will focus on importation rather than production. So, in essence, within the Nigerian Fuel Subsidy context, to subsidise is to sell petrol below the cost of importation. 2) THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Nigerian government claims that Nigerians consume 34 million litres of petrol per day. The government has also said publicly that N141 per litre is the unsubsidised pump price of petrol imported into Nigeria. (N131.70 kobo being the landing price and N9.30 kobo being profit.) 3) ANNUAL COST OF IMPORTATION Daily Fuel Consumption: 34 million litres Cost at Pump: N141.00 No. of days in a regular year: 365 days Total cost of all petrol imported yearly into Nigeria: Litres Naira Days 34m x 141 x 365 = N1.75 trillion 4) COST BORNE BY THE CONSUMERS Nigerians have been paying N65 per litre for fuel, haven’t we? Therefore, cost borne by the consumers = Litres Naira Days 34m x 65 x 365 = N807 billion 5) COST OF SUBSIDY BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT In 2011 alone, government claimed to have spent N1.3 trillion by October – the bill for the full year, assuming a constant rate of consumption is N1.56 trillion. Consequently, the true cost of subsidy borne by the government is: Total cost of importation minus total borne by consumers, i.e. N1.75 trillion minus N807 billion = N943 billion. Unexplainable difference: N617 billion The federal government of Nigeria cannot explain the difference between the amount actually disbursed for subsidy and the cost borne by Nigerians (N1.56 trillion minus N943 billion = N617 billion). 6) BOGUS CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT A government official has claimed that the shortfall of N617 billion is what goes to subsidising our neighbours through smuggling. This is pathetic. But let us assume (assumption being the lowest level of knowledge) that the government is unable to protect our borders and checkmate the brisk smuggling going on. Even then, the figures still don’t add up. This is because even if 50% of the petrol consumed in each of our neighbouring countries is illegally exported from Nigeria, the figures are still inaccurate. Why? WORLD BANK’S FIGURES: POPULATIONS OF WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES NIGERIA: 158.4 million BENIN: 8.8 million TOGO: 6 million CAMEROUN: 19.2 million NIGER: 15.5 million CHAD: 11.2 million GHANA: 24.4 million The total population of all our six (6) neighbours is 85.5 million. Let’s do some more arithmetic: a) Rate of Petrol Consumption in Nigeria: Total consumed divided by total population: 34 million litres divided by 158.8 million people = 0.21 litres per person per day. b) Rate of Petrol Consumption in all our 6 neighbouring countries, assumed to be the same as Nigeria: 0.2 litres x 85.5 million people = 18.35 million litres per day Now, if we assume that 50% of the petrol consumed in all the six neighbouring countries comes from Nigeria, this value come to 9.18 million litres per day. 7) PATHETIC ABSURDITY There are two illogicalities flowing from this smuggling saga. a) If 9.18 million litres of petrol is truly smuggled out of our borders per day, then ours is the most porous nation in the word. This is why: The biggest fuel tankers in Nigeria have a capacity of about 36,000 litres. To smuggle 9.18 million litres of fuel, you need 254 trucks. What our government is telling us is that 254 huge tankers pass through our borders every day and they cannot do anything about it. This is not just acute incompetence, but also a serious security challenge. For if the government cannot stop 254 tanker trailers from crossing the border daily, how can they stop importation of weapons or even invasion by a foreign country? b) 2nd illogicality: Even if we believe the government and assume that about 9.18 million litres is actually taken to our neighbours by way of smuggling every day, and all this is subsidised by the Nigerian government, the figures being touted as subsidy still don’t add up. This is why: Difference between pump price before and after subsidy removal = N141.00 – N65.00 = N76.00 Total spent on subsidizing petrol to our neighbours annually = N76.00 x 9.18 million litres x 365 days = N255 billion If you take the N255 billion away from the N617 billion shortfall that the government cannot explain, there is still a shortfall of N362 billion. The government still needs to tell us what/who is eating up this N362 billion ($2.26 billion USD). ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS i) We have assumed that there are no working refineries in Nigeria and so no local petrol production whatsoever – yet, there is, even if the refineries are working below capacity. ii) Nigeria actually consumes 34 million litres of petrol per day. Most experts disagree and give a figure between 20 and 25 million litres per day. Yet there is still an unexplainable shortfall even if we use the exaggerated figure of the government. iii) Ghana, Togo, Benin, Cameroun, Niger, and Chad all consume the same rate as Nigeria and get 50% of their petrol illegally from Nigeria through smuggling. These figures simply show the incompetence and insincerity of our government officials. This is pure banditry. 9) FACT 9: The simplest part of the fuel subsidy arithmetic will reveal one startling fact: That the government does not need to subsidise our petrol at all if we reject corruption and sleaze as a way of life. Check this out: a) NNPC crude oil allocation for local consumption = 400,000 barrels per day (from a total of 2.450 million barrels per day). b) If our refineries work at just 30%, 280,000 barrels can be sold on the international market, leaving the rest for local production. c) Money accruing to the federal government through NNPC on the sale, using $80/bbl – a conservative figure as against the current price of $100/bbl – would be $22.4m per day. Annually this translates to $8.176bn or N1.3 trillion. d) The government does not need to subsidise our petrol imports - at least not from the Federation Account. The same crude that should have been refined by NNPC is simply sold on the international market (since our refineries barely work) and the money is used to buy petrol. The 400,000 barrels per day given to NNPC for local consumption can either be refined by NNPC or sold to pay for imports. This absurdity called subsidy should be funded with this money, not the regular FGN budget. If the FGN uses it regular budget for subsidising petrol, then what happens to the crude oil given to NNPC for local refining that gets sold on the international market? 10) TACTICAL BLUNDER The federal government is making the deregulation issue a revenue problem. Nigerians are not against deregulation. We have seen deregulation in the telecom sector and Nigerians are better for it, as even the poor have access to telephones now right before the eyes of those who think it is not for them. What is happening presently is not deregulation but an all-time high fuel pump increase, unprecedented in the history of our nation by a government that has gone broke due to excessive and reckless spending largely on themselves. If the excesses of all the three tiers of government are seriously curbed, that would free enough money for infrastructural development without unduly punishing the poor citizens of this country. Let me just cite, in closing, the example of National Assembly excesses and misplaced spending as contained in the 2012 budget proposal: 1.Number of Senators 109 2.Number of Members of the House of Representatives 360 3.Total Number of Legislators 469 4.2012 Budget Proposal for the National Assembly N150 billion 5.Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member N320 million 6.Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member in USD $2.1 million/year Time has come for the citizens of this country to hold the government accountable and demand the prosecution of those bleeding our nation to death. Until this government downsizes, cuts down its profligacy and leads by example in modesty and moderation, the poor people of this country will not and must not subsidise the excesses of the oil sector fat cats and the immorality precipitate fiscal scandal of the self-centred and indulgent lifestyles of those in government. Here is a hidden treasure of wisdom for those in power while there is still time to make amends: PROVERBS 21:6&7 “Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death. The violence of the wicked will destroy them because they refuse to do just.” A word of counsel for those who voted for such soulishly indulgent leadership: “Never trust a man who once had no shoes, or you may end up losing your legs.” This is the conclusion of the matter on subsidy removal: i) “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked.” (Proverbs 29:12) ii) “The Righteous God wisely considers the house of the wicked, overthrowing the wicked for their wickedness. Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and will not be heard.” (Proverbs 21:12&13) Thanks for your attention. God bless you all. Pastor ‘Tunde Bakare i'm still applying all scenarios possible .we never had a SUBSIDY!!!

JONATHAN MISLED THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Jeffrey Sachs, special advisor to U.N. Secy General Ban-ki Moon, says he was misled about the now-controversial lifting of petrol subsidies at a meeting with the Nigerian President.
After a recent session with President Jonathan, Sachs was reported to have praised the removal of fuel subsidy as a good move. He called the removal “a bold and correct policy” and used the word “innovative.”
But after a deluge of tweets on Twitter and other venues from outraged Nigerians, Sachs backed off of his earlier remarks.
Writing on his twitter handle @ JeffDSachs, the professor of economics confessed: “I do my homework very carefully in general, for 30 years, but not on this one. A mistake I regret…I see better that I don’t know the specific details on the subsidy to be accurate.
“ I’m listening and learning. Most important thing I could say is government must build trust with civil society based on anti-corruption, fairness, accountability.”
On whether he knew about the level of corruption in Nigeria before endorsing removal of subsidy, Sachs said: “They didn’t have to tell me. I’m very heartened to see civil society rising against corruption. Yes, I walked out of a meeting and into a sound bite! Not good. The situation is complex and deep reforms are needed…
“I’m sorry that I’ve been misinterpreted. It’s hard to be heard accurately in this noisy world!”
He assured those bombarding him with questions that he understood what they are going through in Nigeria. “I’ve noticed how the politicians barely care about the universities. Sad and costly for Nigeria!” he said.
The Professor of Economics said he had no idea about the subsidy removal until it happened, as he was “not in regular contact on macro policy.”

Is the Opposition Really Serious?

Simon Kolawole Live!: Email: simon.kolawole@thisdaylive.com

Would there be a better time for the Nigeria opposition to take power than in 2015? I don’t think so. I have my reasons.  I’ll start with the issue of “change for change sake”. It just so happens that in many political climates across the world, voters always want something new at a particular point in time, especially when they believe they are not getting the best from the ruling party. The election becomes a case of “anyone but the ruling party”. It happens so frequently in the US and the UK—even in nearby Ghana and Benin. I think this could be a factor in 2015, except President Goodluck Jonathan pulls a spectacular miracle of solving the key issues around power supply, refineries, subsidies, roads and hospitals. Now, that’s a tall order! Even if Jonathan turns water to wine, he would find it difficult persuading Nigerians to drink it.

My second reason is that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is perpetually in crisis and a well-organised opposition should be able to take them to the cleaners. The zoning/rotation crisis is still there. If Jonathan decides not to run because of the pressure from the pro-rotation group in the party, he will have the power of incumbency to work against his own party at the election. But if he decides to run, he should expect a terrible backlash from the pro-rotation group who may wish to make the country “ungovernable” for him. The key PDP stalwarts could break away to work for the opposition—or may even choose to stay back in the party and work against Jonathan’s aspiration. No matter the decision Jonathan takes, there is bound to be some ripple effects that should favour the opposition.

But is the opposition serious? That, to me, is the real question. The most confounding breed of politicians since the advent of this era in 1999 is the opposition. One thing I have noticed about them, consistently, is that they love to shout and scream, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of strategising to take power, they crumble like biscuits trapped in the mouth. They are their own worst enemies. I have concluded many times that some opposition politicians are only interested in relevance. The best way to be noticed and appeased, it seems, is to be in the opposition. I also know that the PDP has infiltrated their ranks, such that some so-called opposition figures are actually working for the party in power. Also, some politicians are in politics for bread and butter and it is very easy to lure them into the party where there is a steady gush of milk and honey.

In 1999, the PDP won 21 states; the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) won nine; and the Alliance for Democracy (AD, technically now Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN), won six. That gave the opposition 15 states. That was something to build on, ahead of the 2003 elections. But what happened? The ANPP chairman, Alhaji Mahmud Waziri (now of blessed memory), was appointed special adviser by President Olusegun Obasanjo and he gladly accepted! How can you, being the chairman of a party controlling nine states, agree to be a presidential aide? What was that about? The case of AD chairman, Alhaji Ahmed Abdulkadir, was even more pathetic: he became Obasanjo’s special assistant without cabinet status. By the 2003 elections, the opposition was in disarray. The AD, playing a purely ethnic game, chose to support Obasanjo in the presidential election. It backfired; the old fox, Obasanjo, captured five of the six AD states for the PDP in governorship election. AD became a one-state party, while the ANPP was reduced to seven states.

By now, the opposition would have been stronger. They would have been in a very good stead to flush out the PDP in 2015 if they had played the game with cohesion and strategic thinking. The Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) won 12 states in the presidential election last year. But for the violence and infighting that gave an easy ride to manipulation in the governorship election that followed, CPC would probably boast of 12 governors, instead of one, today. ACN has six states. All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) has two. The Labour Party (LP) has one. ANPP has three. That would have given the opposition parties 24 states to PDP’s 12. But the CPC bottled it with the post-election violence and infighting. Party supporters, obsessed with the idea that it was Gen. Muhammadu Buhari for president or nothing else, tore up their voter cards or simply refused to vote again. CPC could not take advantage of the Buhari build-up. It simply fizzled out. So PDP gained control of 23 states while the opposition controls a mere 13. I’m aware, of course, that LP and APGA are pro-PDP, but a stronger CPC, combined with ACN, would pose a credible challenge to the PDP any day.

The laziest excuse of the opposition is that the PDP always rigs the elections. Of course, PDP rigs. But other parties rig too. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Finance and logistics play a key role in winning elections in Nigeria. PDP had a head start over other parties in 1999 because the military establishment backed them with the needed “logistics”. However, if the opposition had been thinking strategically, they too would have built their own “logistics” by now, 13 years after! The more states you control, the deeper your pocket and the wider your logistical coverage. All it takes is consistency and commitment to the cause. I would love to sing the populist song that PDP is a party of riggers, but I cannot do that in good conscience. It takes more than rigging to win elections in Nigeria. In fact, you must be in a good position to rig. (For goodness sake, I’m not endorsing rigging; just making a point.)
If the opposition continues to scream “rigging, rigging, rigging” rather than develop a strategy to win power, I’m afraid the lamentation will continue till eternity.

And Four Other Things...

Jonathan under Fire
President Goodluck Jonathan has come under fire over his trip to Brazil and his refusal to make public his asset declaration. Some believe he should not have gone to Brazil while Yobe and Kaduna were on fire. Many also argue that by failing to make his assets public, he has failed a basic moral test, even if the law did not make it compulsory. Although the president has tried to defend himself, what I enjoy most in this is that the public is showing more than a passing interest in the activities of the president. You see, it is not all about elections and policies. I love it.

Dasuki’s Task
The new National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, is an unusual choice, having not been a core intelligence person. But long ago, it had been suggested that we needed a Northerner to quench the Boko Haram fire; he is more likely to secure the co-operation of the security complex, which we inherited from the military establishment. Dasuki immediately went to meet with political and community leaders in Borno and Yobe. They received him warmly. That means a lot. The former NSA, Gen. Owoye Azazi, could not have achieved that. My next worry: if we tame Boko Haram and the Niger Delta militants regroup, who would rein them in? Another “Southern” NSA? I think we’re in trouble.

Diezani and PIB
Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, has raised our hopes again. The all-important Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), she said, has been submitted to the president. It should be with the National Assembly in two weeks. We don’t know the contents of the “revised version” yet but we still assume the PIB is intended to change the way things are done in the oil industry. It must run like real business, like banking and telecoms. Nigeria and Nigerians must benefit more from these resources legitimately. Put simply, Alison-Madueke must push these reforms through. We’re watching…

Brotherhood Indeed
Mohammed Mursi was yesterday sworn in as Egypt’s first civilian, democratically elected president. His party, Muslim Brotherhood—which had been at the receiving end of state persecution for decades—won the popular election after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, former president of the world’s biggest Arab nation. With an Islamic party in charge of the country now, should Egypt’s 8 million Christians be afraid? No, says Mursi—who has, in fact, promised to appoint a woman and a Coptic Christian as his vice-presidents. Now that is the spirit, brother!

The Days of the Cabal (II)

Written by Segun Adeniyi

---

Given that the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua showed me much affection and trust, it was natural that I would feel for him at his most trying moments, especially during the crisis that followed his last trip to Saudi Arabia. At that critical period, there was no doubt in my mind that the correct thing to do was to send a letter of notification to the National Assembly so that Dr. Goodluck Jonathan could assume the presidency in acting capacity as specified by the Constitution. I did all I possibly could to make those who were in a position to influence such decision see reason but I failed.
With this situation, towards the end of 2009, I began to weigh all my options. By then also, there were people calling on me to resign from government. I can categorise them into two: the first comprised my friends and well wishers who argued that I couldn’t possibly justify being spokesman to a president with whom Nigerians had lost contact. I agreed with the position of this group but nonetheless felt that it was better for me to wait for the arrival of the president before taking any such decision.
I had my reason: At that point, I had nothing to lose by resigning since I had my exit plan already mapped out but the question I asked myself was: how would Yar’Adua feel whenever he recovered and he heard that I had jumped ship just because he was sick? He definitely didn’t deserve that from me. Incidentally, there was a second group that also wanted me to resign but was not thinking of my interest or for that matter that of the nation. By that period, there were already cold calculations towards the recently concluded 2011 general elections and different politicians were making their projections. Owing to the strategic position I held, there were those who felt that a public announcement of my resignation would weaken Yar’Adua’s hold on power and they wanted to use me to achieve that end.
By going into public service, I was under no illusion that everybody would like the choices I would make but at every point in the course of my stewardship, I tried to stay true to the values I espoused as a commentator on public affairs. Did I make mistakes? Yes I did. But my decision at every point was based on the evaluation of the information I had and what I considered to be the best approach in the circumstance I found myself at the time. It is possible that others might react differently given the same situation but I made my choices and I take responsibility for them. Quite naturally, the illness of Yar’Adua and the power struggle it unwittingly fuelled led to all manner of speculations, the most ludicrous of which was the myth of a cabal that had hijacked power in Aso Rock and for which I was fronting.
While I never placed much premium on the “cabal” theory, a conversation on the day Architect Namadi Sambo was sworn-in as VP put the issue in its real perspective. As Governor of Kaduna State, anytime Sambo came to the villa, he always visited my office after seeing his childhood friend, then State Chief of Protocol (SCOP), Ambassador Ghali Umar and with that we became quite close. So when he was nominated to the position of VP, I decided to visit him the moment it was confirmed by the National Assembly. I met him at his new Akinola Aguda official residence but as I made to leave, he requested that I witness his inauguration. I joined the vehicle of Mr Isaiah Balat, (erstwhile Minister of State for Works and Housing under President Olusegun Obasanjo) where there were other important personalities. On the way to the villa, Balat asked: “Segun, this Cabal thing, were you really a member?”
Before I could respond, Mr. Nasir el-Rufai (the big masquerade behind the Save Nigeria Group which played a prominent role in the media and civil society campaign that eventually culminated in the National Assembly making Jonathan the acting president) interjected: “There was no cabal, we created the myth to neutralise Turai”.
While Balat and other people in the vehicle appeared shocked, I was not. The former FCT Minister explained how the idea of ‘cabal’ came into being as well as his understanding of the role played by former First Lady, Hajia Turai Yar’Adua and the different people whose names were frequently mentioned as being members. El-Rufai was right only to the extent that the myth of a ‘cabal’ capturing power at a time Jonathan was effectively in charge was mere propaganda. The fact is that whatever may be her faults, Mrs Yar’Adua never interfered with government as being reported by a section of the media, she simply prevented people from seeing her husband. But the presence in the villa of a president Nigerians were not exactly sure as to whether he was dead or alive indeed engendered a situation in which the federal government had broken into several ‘cabals’ of vested interests all desperate either to retain their powers and privileges under a Yar’Adua they could not see; or to seize control under the presidency of Jonathan whose legendary ‘good luck’ (derived from his first name) some ministers made song and dance about within the Federal Executive Council. It was a terrible period for the nation. It was also a most difficult period for me.
The account of the unfortunate health saga of President Yar’Adua, including how he was brought back to the country from Saudi Arabia under the cover of darkness, will be told but it is convenient for my critics to ignore the fact that between November 23, 2009 when he travelled to Saudi Arabia and his controversial return 93 days later, I spoke only five times. The first, to announce on the day he travelled that he was going on medicals; the second, four days later, to say that diagnosis revealed he had pericarditis (which I had a challenge pronouncing); the third, to say on January 10, 2010 from Angola (where I had gone to watch the Cup of Nations) that the president was not dead as a reaction to the rumour fuelled by a story in NEXT; the fourth, to announce on February 24, 2010 that he was back to the country (where then acting President Jonathan was addressed as VP: explanation will come another day) and the fifth, 24 hours later, to clarify that Jonathan remained acting president!
It is usually the lot of people like me who had the privilege of reporting events and analyzing same to be exposed to cynicism whenever we cross the line but I remain indebted to the late Yar’Adua for giving me the opportunity to experience governance at the highest level in my country. The job that I did is basically media work, dealing with the same constituency and I have no doubt been enriched by the privilege of seeing both sides of the coin. The late Mr. Tony Snow, Spokesman for President George W. Bush (whom I met in the White House on his last day in office in the course of the International Visitors Program for which I was invited by the US State Department in July 2007) had written shortly after taking the job “for somebody like me who's been a pundit for many years, you become part of something that's very rare...”
By the end of 2009, however, it was glaring the health of the president had become an issue that would not go away. I therefore came to the inescapable conclusion that I had to leave government. But mindful of several factors, including ethnicity and religion, I resolved I would have to do it with tact. I recall that when I was appointed, there were some people from the Northern part of the country who felt that Yar’Adua had not made a wise political choice. The argument was that his predecessor, President Olusegun Obasanjo, a Yorubaman and Christian, picked three kinsmen of his (and of the same faith) in succession and so by the same logic, Yar’Adua ought to have picked a Hausa Fulani Muslim. At a period ethnicity and religion had crept into the issue of his illness, I didn’t want to give those who criticized my appointment an opportunity to say “we warned him”. He didn’t deserve that from me. But I had my plan.
Through the help of my friend, the Consul General of the Chinese Embassy in Nigeria, Mr. Guo Kun, I had secured a very generous Chinese scholarship for a special one-year MPA programme at Beijing University that included going to China with my family. My plan therefore was that whenever the president came back, I would inform him that I had secured admission which would then mean I could disengage from government. That way, there would be no question of disloyalty as the reason for my resignation would be clear. But the circumstances of his arrival back to the country in late February did not make such discussion possible. So, I kept things to myself.
Even though it was a very difficult period for me, I just could not abandon my boss at his hour of trial, especially when I knew the state he was in as one of the very few people granted access to see him. Incidentally, even his Katsina loyalists whose names were touted in the media as ‘cabal’ members never saw Yar’Adua from the time he was in Saudi Arabia to when he died at the villa but I did. I recall having a conference call with THISDAY Editors who told me to resign until I confirmed to them I had seen the president. I also explained my exit plan to them given my Beijing University admission.
By a stroke of fortune, however, on April 14, 2010, a friend sent me an internet link to the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, the largest international research center within Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Without bothering to examine the requirements, I simply applied and sent my resume to the program director, Dr. Kathleen Molony. Less than an hour later, I got a response from her. She wrote that application had closed two months earlier on February 25 and participants had been taken. She however added that given that she found my application quite compelling, she would discuss it with the selection board to see if they could make exceptions to accommodate me. That began an exchange of correspondences with Harvard University and on May 4, 2010, I finally got the offer of appointment. Choosing between Beijing and Harvard was not an easy decision given my desire for my children to speak Mandarin but they preferred going to US. By 5pm the next day I was with acting President Jonathan to show him the letter from Harvard and to submit my letter of resignation from government. He was evidently happy for me and I must have spent about 30 minutes with him as we reviewed the state of the nation. Less than four hours later, President Yar’Adua died.

The Days of the ‘Cabal’…(I)

The Verdict According To Olusegun Adeniyi. Email, olusegun.adeniyi@thisdaylive.com

On the night of December 16, 2006, I got a call from Alhaji Aliko Dangote who sought to know whether I was in Abuja. When I answered in the affirmative, he requested that I joined him and a few other people he would not name at the residence of Senator Andy Uba, then a Senior Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs to President Olusegun Obasanjo. This was on the day the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was holding its National Convention to pick the presidential candidate for the April 2007 general elections.

When I arrived at Uba’s residence, I met Dangote and Uba as well as four others: then EFCC Chairman, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu; former Delta State governor, Chief James Ibori; his Kwara State counterpart, Dr Bukola Saraki; and Zenon Oil Chairman, Mr. Femi Otedola. Since my arrival did not change the tone of discussion, it was easy for me to keep abreast of what the issue was: then Rivers State governor, Dr. Peter Odili, had been selected by President Olusegun Obasanjo as running mate to his anointed PDP presidential candidate, Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Odili’s name had even been written into the acceptance speech to be read by Yar’Adua after what would have been no more than a hollow ritual at the Eagle Square. The essence of the gathering was to stop Odili from becoming Yar’Adua’s running mate on grounds of alleged corruption.

When I asked why I was invited to the meeting, they said they had an “exclusive story” for THISDAY which would highlight allegations of corruption against Odili but with a caveat: it had to be published in next morning’s edition of the newspaper. The evidence was to be supplied by Ribadu who held a file containing the documents. While I considered the proposition somewhat ridiculous, I also wondered how a THISDAY publication could affect the decision to make Odili the running mate. It was then they explained what was going on.

Earlier that day, they had held a meeting with Obasanjo about their misgivings on the choice of Odili but he had dismissed the allegations against the Rivers State governor whom he insisted would be Yar’Adua’s running mate. What they therefore resolved was that since the primaries was likely to run till next morning, and given that THISDAY comes out early in Abuja by virtue of simultaneous printing, if the newspaper ran the story and Obasanjo’s attention was drawn to it, he would have no choice but to stop Odili from being Yar’Adua’s running mate.

Knowing what I was expected to do, I pointed out why it could not be done. First, I explained that what was being asked of me was not journalism but politics because there was no way I could publish such a story without getting Odili’s response which, given the circumstances of that night, was impossible. I also explained that my powers as editor of THISDAY were highly exaggerated in that even if I had all the facts, including Odili’s response, such a politically sensitive story could not go without the approval of my chairman and editor-in-chief, Mr Nduka Obaigbena, who I noted was a friend to all of them gathered in the room. I told Dangote to call Obaigbena and he did. They took turns to speak with Obaigbena who afterwards sent me a text message asking me to call him after leaving the meeting. When I did, he was displeased that I could bring him into such a discussion when, as editor, I should know the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, I advised the gathering it was better Ribadu confronted Obasanjo with the allegations against Odili. They all laughed, saying that was what they had spent all day doing. They were obviously very frustrated. Eventually it was agreed that Ribadu should make a last ditch effort so he called Obasanjo’s ADC, Col. Chris Jemitola, that he needed to see the president urgently and alone. Within five minutes, the ADC got back to Ribadu that the president would meet him at a secure location within the Eagle Square. Armed with what all of them at the meeting described as a ‘bombshell’ from the diplomatic mission of a Western country in Nigeria, it was Ribadu who got Obasanjo to knock Odili’s name out of Yar’Adua’s speech and ultimately from the ticket. A few months later, President Yar’Adua himself would confirm most of what I already knew when he recounted the dramatic story of how Odili lost out as his running mate. But from his tone, by wielding such enormous political powers, Ribadu’s days in office as EFCC Chairman were clearly numbered.

Back to the meeting in Uba’s house that fateful December 2006 night: Out of curiousity, I asked them who they had in mind as a likely replacement for Odili in the event that their plan succeeded. Two names came up in an instant: Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and Lt. General Andrew Azazi. It was easy to rationalize Jonathan’s choice being at that time the governor of Bayelsa State ; but Azazi was not a politician. He was at that period the Chief of Army Staff. Why Azazi, I quipped and someone responded: He is Ijaw. From the discussion, it was evident they had explored all options and had already taken certain decisions. If the idea was to pick a running mate from Niger Delta, I asked, “why not Donald Duke?”

Andy Uba responded: “That is one name Baba (President Obasanjo) does not want to hear.” Having always assumed that Obasanjo and then Cross River State Governor were very close, this was shocking to me, but coming from Uba I couldn’t doubt it. I also sought to know what Yar’Adua felt about the choice of Odili and why he couldn’t tell Obasanjo about his misgivings if he had any. It was Andy Uba again who responded: “Yar’Adua tell baba he doesn’t want Odili?”, he asked laughing.

This was very worrying for me. The impression I got from the interactions was that we were going to have a puppet president who would not only be manipulated to power but would be at the mercy of his scheming predecessor as well. It was therefore quite natural that the events of that night would resonate in my mind on April 24, 2007 when, a few days after the presidential election, my guardian and then Communications Minister, Chief Cornelius Adebayo, called that he had been contacted to approach me to be spokesman to Yar’Adua. He said he had 24 hours to report back whether I was interested or not. It didn’t take me that long to turn down the offer.

Apart from the fact that public office held no attraction for me as I was enjoying my job as THISDAY editor and commentator on public affairs, I also had my doubts about whether Yar’Adua, given the circumstances of his accession, would ever find his own voice. I found out much later that after Yar’Adua had decided he wanted me to be his spokesman, it was Dr. Aliyu Modibbo who suggested that the offer be made through my guardian who was his colleague in the Obasanjo cabinet. Modibbo, who had for long been a big brother, later invited me to Abuja to see whether he could persuade me to change my mind but when he realized my resolve on the matter, he asked that I nominate some credible senior journalists and I actually suggested some names. But as it turned out, that was not the end of the story.

At the instance of Obaigbena, I spent three days in Katsina in the first week of May 2007 observing and chatting with president-elect Yar’Adua for a cover story that I would later write for a THISDAY special edition. But at that period, I no longer thought about the offer, which I assumed must have been made to someone else. Incidentally, Yar’Adua also did not broach the issue throughout my encounter with him in Katsina. Unknown to me, however, Obaigbena, who initially expressed anger that attempts were made to “poach” his editor without his clearance, had been discussing with Yar’Adua and had given a condition on which he would make me accept the offer: only if the office was elevated to cabinet rank in which case I would be a Special Adviser and not Senior Special Assistant as my predecessors were. I had no inkling about all these until much later.

When Yar’Adua therefore assumed office on May 29, 2007 without announcing a spokesman, I assumed that he was still searching until the afternoon of May 30 – a day after inauguration – when I got a call from Obaigbena who was in Abuja . He began with a preamble that bordered on how he would never do anything against my interest and that if what he was going to tell me was not good for me, he would not have ventured. Even though he had always related to me more like a brother than a boss, and I was considered one of his favourite editors, I found his sermon somewhat unusual before he now added: “The president still wants you to be his spokesman and I told him that the editor of THISDAY cannot accept any job that is not of cabinet level. He has agreed to elevate the office to Special Adviser on Communication and I have accepted the offer on your behalf. Now wait for the president.”

Before I could say anything, Obaigbena had given the phone to Yar’Adua who also pleaded with me to see the offer as a call to national service. Although I was a bit dumbfounded, I knew at that point that my resistance was over. I said: “Mr. President, at this point, it is no longer a request, it is a command.”
•To be concluded next week.

Simply Overwhelmed

I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of goodwill since my return to THISDAY and this page was announced on Monday. But I am not naïve. There are also many people out there who feel a sense of betrayal, either that I joined government at all or that I didn’t conform to expectations at a certain period. That I also understand. As I told some of my friends during those crazy ‘cabal’ days, if I was still writing this column and some other person were in the position I held, I would be highly critical of an Olusegun Adeniyi. But then I would not have all the facts. For me, the last one year at Harvard has been a period for serious reflection about my country and amidst my other commitments, I managed to complete a book on the Yar’Adua Years, half of which is on his illness and death. It should be out hopefully within the next three months.

One thing I will say for now is that all factors considered, I served a very good man. Notwithstanding his health challenge, which unfortunately was evident from his first day in office, President Yar’Adua also initiated some fundamental policies which will stand Nigeria well, if they are not subverted. Already, there are disturbing signals that his greatest legacy, the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), might have been hijacked by some vested interests in the oil and gas industry. On a personal note, I will always cherish Yar’Adua’s memory. Always!