UNLIKELY MESSENGERS, TOUGH MESSAGE - By: Dr. Hakeem Baba Ahmed....

“Milk is always the same whether it comes from a black cow or a white one.” Tanzanian Proverb.

Last week, Presidents Obasanjo and Babangida released a joint statement. That was news in itself. The two former leaders, who between them had ruled this nation for about 18 years, have not enjoyed the best of relations in the last few years. They have tip-toed around each other, each wary of the other’s scheming to lower his profile and diminish his standing as the dominant player on the political scene. President Babangida’s ship which run aground in 1993, leaving him barely enough time to escape on a life raft was, in a rather fortuitous manner, responsible for the emergence of President Obasanjo as the PDP candidate in the 1999 elections. A largely northern-dominated PDP and a military leadership which still haboured some Babangida influence had decided that a Yoruba man should be President, to make up for the abortion of the previous Presidential elections that may have produced Chief M.K.O Abiola as winner. Obasanjo would not have made the list of 100 preferred Yoruba politicians if Yoruba mainstream political opinion was consulted, but the PDP was not in the business of consulting Yoruba mainstream political opinion. So Obasanjo was dusted up and installed as the party’s candidate, and won the elections with the strong push of the military (including Babangida) and the north. The Yoruba voted overwhelmingly against him.

Until he had firmly secured a stranglehold on the party, Obasanjo never took his eyes off Babangida. Babangida himself had been badly wounded in the manner his rule came to a sorry end, but his tactical withdrawal was to last for only a few years. Powerful people who rule nations such as Nigeria never walk away entirely from power, or sleep with both eyes closed. They fight to stay relevant and influential, as much to protect themselves against their records and legions of enemies they would have made; as for reasons of simple economic survival.
Obasanjo himself, having failed to reinvent himself through the Yar’Adua/Jonathan contraption he foisted on the nation, has been rapidly and dangerously losing ground. Jonathan’s stand-alone Presidency was being effectively barricaded against him, and the political ground in the West had shifted away from him to the ACN. Similarly, Babangida’s claim to national leadership which had been severely dented in the 1990s was further battered by the northern PDP consensus candidate misadventure. The two former giants developed feet of clay, and by the end of Jonathan’s first year in office on a solo run, both looked pretty much like finished goods. Both watched as unprecedented levels of incompetence in running the affairs of state, incredible exposés on massive corruption and a crippling insurgency with dangerous religious undertones threatened to swallow the very foundations of the nation. The weaknesses of the Nigerian state were being exposed almost daily; the survival of the nation as one entity was being questioned widely and openly and elder statesmen and respected citizens were being reduced to letter-writing and twiddling of thumbs as the nation drifted apart and burned. In the aftermath of the post-election violence, many bridges had been broken, and northern politicians in particular were being held responsible for the escalating violence.

As former Heads of State and members of Council of State, it is quite probable that they had availed President Jonathan of their counsel, insights and experiences. If they did, Nigerians saw no evidence of it in the unchanging tactics and strategies which the Jonathan administration adopted towards the JASLIWAJ (a.k.a. Boko Haram) insurgency; or in efforts to reduce the scale of corruption, incompetence and impunity in the administration. In fairness to him, President Obasanjo had made a dangerous trip to Maiduguri and reportedly met with leaders of the insurgency. The trip not only ended tragically for some of those involved in its facilitation, but it became obvious that whatever he came away with, Obasanjo’s experience did not feed the administration’s thinking and responses to the insurgency. General Babangida too had been part of many meetings and consultations over the JASLIWAJ insurgency mostly by northern elders or such fora but the fact that northern Muslim leaders had long been accused of raising the insurgency as a violent strategy to destabilize Jonathan and regain power must have been a constant factor in his mind and involvement. Old man C.K Clark has renewed the innuendoes that leaders like Babangida and Buhari have some handle on the insurgency. If they do get involved successfully in bringing it to an end, they are accused of being it masterminds. If they do not they are accused of sustaining it.

Presidents Obasanjo and Babagida, whose capacity to influence events in the nation has virtually expired, were the people who released a passionate joint statement appealing to Nigerians of all religions to turn the tide against insecurity, violence and hatred. They advise religious leaders to utilize the Ramadan period to inculcate among Nigerians the spirit of mutual respect, humility and forgiveness. They warned of events that are threatening the very foundations and survival of the nation, a product of a century of labour of all Nigerians. These events are pitching Nigerians against each other, and subjecting millions more to untold hardship on a daily basis. They say the loss of innocent lives being experienced daily is unbearable, and that the nation is gripped by a regime of fear and uncertainty. Worse, they draw attention to a pervasive cynicism, even among millions of true Nigerian patriots, which questions the platform upon which the unity of this country rests. They warn that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable, and advise that efforts by various governments in the country to confront the escalating security challenges across the country should be scaled up to be more involving and inclusive.
The former leaders said a lot more, but nothing that has not been said over and over again by them or many others in a different context or fora. Reading the lengthy lamentation of the two elderly Nigerians one could see an effort to meet an obligation as leaders to offer counsel when it is needed. But you could also see the hand of President Jonathan in the initiative, which they acknowledge. Indeed, they say they will convene a session of all former Heads of State to find lasting solutions to the insecurity in the nation. The very careful language, which included avoiding a mention of JASLIWAJ (a.k.a Boko Haram) insurgency or dialogue between it and government belies the chronicle of desperate crisis which faces the nation, and which is clearly overwhelming the capacity of President Jonathan’s administration to handle.

Rather sadly, the nation will merely take note of another impassioned plea for peace and security, this time by President Jonathan using former heads of state as messengers. Even as the joint statement was being released, the insurgents were battling soldiers and police in Maiduguri, Potiskum, Sokoto, Kano and shooting policemen outside the Vice President’s family house in Zaria. Far from serving as a restraint against fresh attacks, the month of Ramadan appears to have served as an impetus for renewed and intensified violence across the entire north. Ominously, suicide bombers attacked police facilities in Sokoto, just a few weeks after a suicide bomber attempted to take the life of the Shehu of Borno.

Is there still the chance that this threat to the security and survival of the nation can be effectively and permanently curtailed? The vast majority of Nigerians will hope so, because the alternative is simply unimaginable. The JASLIWAJ insurgency is unlikely to subdue the Nigerian State and its citizens around its philosophy and vision. But the present administration will be hard put to defeat it comprehensively in the near future because it is itself presently rooted on very weak foundations. Its entire game plan and tactics need to be overhauled. It is worrying that critical turning points may have been missed by the government in the manner it related or reacted to the insurgency. The insurgency may either have fragmented into many centers of activity which makes negotiations and dialogue difficult, or it has developed the sophistication to devolve substantial responsibility to members or units to operate independently. Or the insurgency itself has been infiltrated by rogue and opportunistic elements who operate using its methods to weaken the state further. It is still more worrying that the insurgency, or factions of it, have graduated to the use of more sophisticated weaponry, going by recent reports of seizure of such weapons.

Citizens and communities resent being hostages of the insurgency, and are bitter at the treatment they receive from security agencies. Most members of the Muslim clergy are compromised by partisan politics, which makes them liabilities as mediators. Northern Muslim politicians who were once accused of floating the insurgency as a political front are reluctant to get involved for fear of being accused of putting out fires they lit, or coming unstuck because they have no influence over the insurgency. Beyond boots and bullets, the administration has no real leverage in the communities which both habour and pay a terrible price for the insurgency. This is a major weakness, and is perhaps the issue Obasanjo and Babangida have in mind when they advise on the adoption of “involving and inclusive” approach.

But the battle for the heart and soul of the nation as well as its future as a secure and united country must involve telling President Jonathan some hard truth. If these former leaders will be of any value in mediating the many problems which confront this nation, they must also take back a message to the President. They should tell him that serial incompetence and unprecedented levels of corruption in his administration are depriving him of the capacity to lead the nation out of this difficult stage. Nigerians do not see evidence that President Jonathan can arrest the drift towards disunity; or rein-in corruption, or improve the quality of governance and quality of lives; or confront the JASLIWAJ insurgency, and tackle multiple ethno-religious conflicts, kidnappings, violent crimes e.t.c. They see an administration which is indifferent or insensitive, and which appears completely isolated from the citizenry. This is precisely why many Nigerians who love this country cannot see it surmounting its current problems, and why they are coming to terms with the possibility that bits and pieces of it will be better off on their own.

Presidents Obasanjo and Babangida’s job of asking Nigerians to stand back from the abyss will be difficult to accomplish unless they recognize the very heart of the problem. This is the existence of a political leadership which shows no capacity to govern with vision, competence and honesty. There are genuine reasons why Nigerians should worry about the JASLIWAJ insurgency as a national, rather than a northern problem. There are grounds for worry in the manner governments impoverish, rather than improve the economic well-being of citizens. There is something wrong in the manner the economy is good to you, or you are pauperized, based only on where you live. A nation with these features has no future. But it can be fixed, and it should start from the present. A bad leadership cannot build a good nation. This is what Obasanjo and Babangida should tell President Jonathan.