Jonathan’s diminishing Presidency

July 4, 2012 by Sabella Abidde

In early January 2010, I attempted to craft a profile of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan in an essay entitled Goodluck Jonathan: The Emerging Profile. I did so because many Nigerians had wondered what type of a man he was, and what type of a President he was going to be. Yes, he had been a deputy governor and, later, the governor of Bayelsa State from where he was handpicked to be Umaru Yar’Adua’s running mate under the Peoples Democratic Party platform. Still, he was, for the most part, an unknown political commodity. Even after he became the Vice-President, many still wondered who he was.

Unlike his predecessors, Jonathan’s anonymity level was very high — so high that even within his state, not much was known about him. Speculations and perception were one thing; but reality was another. In reality, who was Jonathan? That was the main question. After the untimely death of Yar’Adua (and it became apparent that Jonathan would become the next President), the race to get a deeper and wider knowledge and understanding of the man intensified. The generalised question was whether a man of such mien and disposition had what it took to govern and move the country to the Promised Land. I believed he could.

Yes, I believed he could. And it was during this period that several personalities came to mind, including Harry S. Truman and Gen. Yakubu Gowon. President Truman, as I told my readers then was “the unseen, the voiceless and lowly-regarded vice-president under the highly-regarded Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” However, after the death of Roosevelt, and upon becoming the substantive President, “Truman became his own man — steering the ship of state like an old hand, defying pessimistic expectations” and going on to become a major player in domestic and global politics. He is today considered a statesman.

And then there was Gowon. Though a soldier, he was, in reality a young chap who was still trying to navigate life’s raging seas. He was a man still trying to find himself. Yet, he was man enough and strong enough to carry the weight of a nation at war. You see, “unlike some of his contemporaries, he was not a braggart, a brute, or bloodguilt. He spoke and acted like a gentleman. In another time or place, he would have been a monk or a priest ensconced in a monastery…Say what you may about his three failings, no other President or Head of State has been half as good.”

With these and other personalities in mind, I thought Jonathan had a very good chance of pulling it off. I saw a Truman and a Gowon in him. Really, I did. At the very least, I thought he was going to be better than Olusegun Obasanjo; and certainly better than Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha, and Shehu Shagari. But alas, I was wrong. Dead wrong! What we have, and what we have seen is a man who is very uncomfortable with his shoes and his many hats. What we have is a President that is not loved, not feared, and definitely not respected by the masses; or by anyone who is of any significance at home or perhaps abroad. It was not this way in the beginning. It was not!

For instance, when Jonathan was the Acting President, he visited the United States for the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. Diasporan Nigerians fell in love with him. What’s more, the global community went gaga and agog over his disposition, anticipated-presidency and possibilities. From China to Australia, and from South Africa to Brazil and all spots in between – there was collective happiness and excitement. Jonathan became the man of the hour. Altogether, it seems like a new dawn for Nigeria. A new beginning.

In Goodluck Jonathan: The Domestic and Global Implications of His US Visit, I summarised his visit this way: “Not quite a Mandela, an Obama, or a Dalai Lama, still; they watched and wondered. It’s been a while since the world wondered about an African head of government. And especially in Washington DC, he became the talk of the town: the doyen of such power houses such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Corporate Council for Africa, and the World Bank. Anybody who was anybody in and around the DC area wanted to meet with him or hear him speak.” It was surreal and electrifying all at once.

In concluding that essay, I cautioned that “…there must be some great accomplishments on his part to continue in the good grace of the people. At this point in time, Nigerians do not expect the world of him. They just want him to be better than himself, to be better than the ordinary, and to be better than mediocre. That’s all.” Sadly and annoyingly, this President has disappointed everybody! As the Acting President, he took some bold and courageous steps. In that short period, he acted boldly, walked boldly and spoke boldly. His totality pointed to a man of courage who was on a great mission. I never doubted that he would change the face, the spirit and the ambience of the nation.

Sadly and embarrassingly, since becoming the President, everything — everything he has done or not done — reeks of doubt, second-guessing, controversy, mediocrity, and self-immolating tendencies. For instance, the economy is in a shambles with unemployment in the high thirties. Politically, our public institutions are getting weaker and weaker every passing week. Socially, corruption and corrupt practices have attained new heights and no one seems afraid of judicial penalties and punishments. At the local, state and federal levels, Nigerians seem to have given up on good governance.

And while it is true that this President did not cause many of the problems we now face, they have worsened under his watch. And because he seems highly tolerant of ethical, political, social and economic deficits and violations, the country is falling apart; and its institutions decaying. The general perception of the President is of a man incapable of little things. If he is incapable of the little things, then, the big and great accomplishments become a fantasy. With the passing of every week, this President diminishes his person and his Presidency. Can he turn things around?

Jonathan, Buhari and 2015

Group Politics Editor, TAIWO ADISA, examines the brouhaha thrown up by the latest comments by former Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari, on the possible outcome of 2015 elections.
Former Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari, again stirred the hornet’s nest on Tuesday when he declared that the nation could witness a  bloody outcome, if politicians go ahead to rig the 2015 election. Buhari, who spoke in Hausa, while receiving loyalists of his Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) from Niger who paid him a courtesy visit in Kaduna, warned that 2015 would be bloody, if transparent elections were not conducted. He also said he was yet to throw his hat into the ring for the 2015 presidential poll. Buhari, whose comments ahead of the 2011 elections were suspects and seen in some quarters as fueling the spate of violence witnessed after the elections, had declared that if what happened in 2011 repeats itself in 2015, the country could just be soaked in blood.

Ahead of the 2011 election, Buhari had stirred a similar controversy which was interpreted as a call to arms on his supporters to unleash violence.
Though his party denied the claim, many believe that the General had spoken too vehemently and that his decision to shed tears in one of the campaigns was enough to raise temperature among some youths.  While the comments which tended to violence then was said to have been misconstrued, his main challenger, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, had responded by saying that his vote was not worth the blood of any Nigerian.

But just as Nigerians were trying to put all that behind, Buhari struck again on Tuesday, this time, raising the bar. Although the statement has again been met by controversy, there is the indication that, indeed, the former Head of State spoke about the possibility of blood flowing on the streets, if certain things happen.

The General, who in a parable painted the picture of a bloody battle for survival between dogs and baboons, warned that leaders who failed to conduct credible elections could be forced to bow out with ignominy.

He was quoted as saying: “God willing, by 2015, something will happen. They either conduct a free and fair election or they go a very disgraceful way.
“If what happened in 2011 (alleged rigging) should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood.”
Buhari, however, did not use his own words while talking about the state of insecurity in the land.

“I will like to quote Professor Ango Abdullahi who said there are three Boko Harams including the original one led by Muhammed Yusufu who was killed and his supporters tried to take revenge by attacking the law enforcement agencies and politicians. There is another developed Boko Haram of criminals who steal and kill… while the biggest Boko Haram is the Federal Government.”

“Since the leaders now don’t listen to anybody but do whatever they wish, there is nothing the North can do.”

The General further commented on the oil subsidy probe and the failure of the oil sector thus: “The current leadership of the country has destroyed the petroleum industry. These kind of things can only happen under the type of leadership Nigeria has. Nowhere in the world can such things happen and no where in the world can government increase the cost of petroleum products by over 120 per cent. It is most insensitive. Besides the air people breath, the next important thing to them are petroleum products.

“Unfortunately for me, I know more about petroleum industry than others in government because I was there for over three years as a leader. We started with the Port-Harcourt Refinery producing 60,000 barrels per day. It was upgraded to 100,000 barrels per day. Another one was built there (Port-Harcourt) producing over 150,000 barrels making a total of 250,000 barrels per day purely on Nigerian crude.”

His declarations immediately sparked a row of protest from the Presidency and the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The Presidency, which was rather reacting to a familiar foe, described Buhari’s statements as unfortunate and unbecoming of a former Nigerian Head of State.

The statement by the Special Adviser, Media and Publicity to President Goodluck Jonathan, Dr. Reuben Abati, read: “The attention of the Presidency has been drawn to unfortunate statements in the media made by former Head of State and presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Major General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in which he allegedly predicted bloodshed in 2015 and labelled the Federal Government led by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, as ‘the biggest Boko Haram.’

“Perhaps, the most unfortunate part of the statement was the portion in which Buhari said that, ‘since the leaders now don’t listen to anybody but do whatever they wish, there is nothing the North can do.’

“We find it very sad that an elder statesman who once presided over the entirety of Nigeria can reduce himself to a regional leader who speaks for only a part of Nigeria.

“We now understand what his protégé and former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Malam Nasir el’Rufai, meant when he wrote in a public letter in October of 2010, telling Nigerians that Buhari remains ‘perpetually unelectable’ and that Buhari’s ‘insensitivity to Nigeria’s diversity and his parochial focus are already well-known.’

“Who can know Buhari better than his own political associate? Come to think of it, as the CPC presidential candidate in the 2011 election, how many states in the federation did he visit to campaign for votes? Buhari never bothered to campaign in the Southern part of the country and consistently played up the North-South divide to the chagrin of patriotic and well-meaning Nigerians.

“As the results revealed, Nigerians will never vote for anyone who wants to divide the country. Is Buhari going to continue to be a sectional leader?
“The Federal Government, led by President Jonathan is not Boko Haram. Boko Haram means Western education is sin. That being the case, one wonders how a government that devoted the largest allocation in the 2012 budget to education could be said to be Boko Haram.

“Between 1983, when Buhari forcefully seized power from the democratically elected administration of President Shehu Usman Shagari, and 2012, no other administration has committed the same quantum of resources as the Jonathan-led administration to education in the part of Nigeria that has witnessed the most Boko Haram-related insecurity.

“Only on April 10, 2012, President Jonathan commissioned the first of 400 Federal Government Model Almajiri Schools, equipped with modern facilities such as a language laboratory, Qur’an recitation hall, classrooms and dormitories as well as a clinic, vocational workshop, dining hall and quarters for the mallams.

“As Nigerians read this, more of such schools have been completed.

“We now challenge Major General Buhari (rtd) to tell Nigerians what he has done, whether in his capacity as the head of a military junta or in his private capacity, to bring education to vulnerable children. If he cannot live up to this challenge, perhaps, he has to reassess who really is Boko Haram.

“Buhari claims that the Federal Government does not listen. Such an accusation ought not to emanate from a man overthrown by his own hand-picked colleagues in the military for refusing to listen to advice and behaving as if he had a monopoly of knowledge.

“It is on record that the Federal Government, led by President Jonathan, is a listening administration, hence, its decision to pursue all means of resolving the Boko Haram insurgency, including through dialogue.

“When Buhari says that ‘if what happens in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood,’ we hereby state that it is Buhari himself who does not listen. He has obviously refused to listen to the Nigerian people, the European Union, the Commonwealth Monitoring Group, the African Union and a multitude of independent electoral monitors who testified that the 2011 elections were free and fair and ‘the best elections since Nigeria returned to civil rule.’

“Indeed, such a reaction from Buhari is not totally unexpected since he has become a serial election loser who has never taken his past election defeats graciously even when such elections were generally acknowledged to be free and fair.
“Still on the issue of Boko Haram, we wonder what locus a man whose party’s Secretary General, Buba Galadima, told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in December, 2010, that the Federal Government is underestimating the support base of Boko Haram, has to accuse a government that has been threatened on camera by the leaders of Boko Haram of itself being Boko Haram?

“Major General Buhari (rtd) also boasts of his knowledge of the Petroleum Industry because of his time as Federal Commissioner for Petroleum. We wonder why he did not boast of the infamous scandal that occurred in that ministry where, under his watch, billions of naira (in the 1970s), were reported stolen, a matter which led to the setting up of the Justice Ayo Irikefe-led panel.

“Finally, we wish to make it known to Buhari that given his reference to ‘dogs and baboons,’ perhaps, his best course of action would be to travel to the zoo of his imagination because President Goodluck Jonathan was elected by human beings to preside over human beings and it is human beings who will determine what happens in Nigeria at any material time, not ‘dogs and baboons.’”

While also speaking on Buhari’s declaration, spokesman of the PDP, Chief Olisah Metuh, accused the General of setting the stage for bloodletting in future elections. He asked Northern leaders to call Buhari to order.

He said: “It is very clear that the CPC presidential candidate in the 2011 elections is already setting the stage for another round of bloodletting akin to what happened after the 2011 general elections. I must state that the PDP finds it very disturbing that in spite of the serious security challenges facing the country, Buhari, a former military Head of State, is once again inciting people to take the law into their hands.

“We need to remind ourselves that on April 21, Buhari was reported in the media as predicting a bloody revolution in 2015. The reports in the national dailies quoting the same retired General as repeating that blood will flow in 2015 is another build-up to Buhari’s relish of funeral train.

“It is on record that Nigeria is yet to recover from the huge losses it suffered due to such reckless and provocative remarks by Buhari before the 2011 general elections which led to a spate of bloody post-election violence across six states of the federation.”

But Buhari’s political party, the CPC and the opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) appear on the same page in the unfolding drama. While the CPC saw nothing wrong in Buhari’s declaration, the ACN said it was not alarmed because Buhari was only calling attention to the need for credible elections.
CPC, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Rotimi Fashakin, said Buhari’s comments were taken out of context adding that the General was speaking out of altruistic tendencies.

“The Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) has noted the response of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, as president of Nigeria, to the altruistic statement credited to our national leader, General Muhammadu Buhari wherein he had stated inter-alia of dire consequences for the perpetual riggers of our electoral process in 2015. In the statement signed by Dr. Reuben Abati, Special Adviser to the President on Media, Buhari was grotesquely characterised as a sectional leader,” Fashakin stated.
He stated that though Buhari has been out of power for 28 years, his influence has continued to grow among a broad spectrum of Nigerians, including, according to him, the General’s adversaries.

The CPC further said: “Buhari was quoted as saying that the Jonathan-led Federal Government is the greatest Boko-Haram. Understandably, this elicited awful response from the president. In a jejune, puerile, and very pedestrian communication, the presidential spokesman defined Boko-Haram as ‘Western education is sin’ and went on to posit the administration’s investment in education. How awkwardly inane could that be?

“It is common knowledge that Boko-Haram has become the euphemism for subtlety in devious schemes that cause mass killings of the innocents. As Buhari aptly stated, Boko Haram has three variants, with varying degrees of severity and murderous content: the original Boko-haram that seeks to avenge the extra-judicial killing of its leader by the Nigeria Police; the Boko Haram that pursues criminality for monetary gains and of course, the political Boko Haram that is bent on setting the stage for ethno-religious pogrom in the Nigerian nation. It is the political Boko Haram, with its extremely lethal content, that the Jonathan-led Federal Government represents.

“In January 2012, Dr. Jonathan told a bewildered nation, still smarting from murderous bombings, that his government has been infiltrated by Boko Haram.”

In its statement on Wednesday, the ACN said the statement by Buhari was ‘nothing but a warning against those who may be planning to rig the 2015 general elections, hence, it should not have rankled anyone who believes in free, fair and transparent polls.’

The party further said: “we hold no brief for anyone, but it is true that if elections are rigged, as they have been so shamelessly and brazenly done by the PDP since 1999, naturally people will react, and in doing so, it is impossible for anyone to predict how far things can go. This is what, in our opinion, General Buhari warned against. If the Presidency and the PDP have no intention to rig in 2015, why are they so worried about the consequences of such action?’’

While the various political tendencies in the land are already picking their take on the statements credited to the former Head of State, it has become imperative to raise certain questions. The questions have become compelling in view of the claims coming from Buhari’s camp that the call for violence was a twist from the media. It is on record that twice in recent times, Buhari’s comments have created some commotions, perhaps, needless from a former Nigerian leader. Answers to some of the questions could further provide insights into the Buhari persona. A commentator might want to ask why Buhari’s statements are prone to misinterpretation. Is there anything in the General’s voice that creates some form of steely resistance and possible call to arms? What is his source of anger or bitterness? What type of election will be acceptable to him and what are the indices of free and fair election? If he was referring to 2011 election as rigged, does it mean that he rejects the submission of the Supreme Court on the matter? For a man who had risen to the highest position in the land to shed tears at a campaign function presupposes some deep feelings that, perhaps, need full deconstruction. Are there certain things Buhari strongly wants to put across but he has not found the right accommodation to do so? Why does he tend to speak with vehemence and anger against the system? 

Though experts in Hausa language have tried to x-ray the intents of the words used by the General in that encounter with his party men, most of the interpreters came to the conclusion that there were references to a fierce battle for survival, which could lead to bloodshed.

Lessons being drawn from the latest spat on the comments by General Buhari tend to confirm that anyone who rises to the position of leadership need to be circumspect in making public pronouncements. Besides the fact that some fairly educated fellows, who see him as their idol could misinterpret the intends of any strong words as a call to arms, some might deliberately take the words out of context to cause mayhem.

The crimes of Buhari-Wole Soyinka

This intervention has been provoked, not so much by the ambitions of General Buhari to return to power at the head of a democratic Nigeria, as by declarations of support from directions that leave one totally dumbfounded. It would appear that some, myself among them, had been overcomplacent about the magnitude of an ambition that seemed as preposterous as the late effort of General Ibrahim Babangida to aspire yet again to the honour of presiding over a society that truly seeks a democratic future.  What one had dismissed was a rash of illusions, brought about by other political improbabilities that surround us, however, is being given an air of plausibility by individuals and groupings to which one had earlier attributed a sense of relevance of historic actualities. Recently, I published an article in the media, invoking the possible recourse to psychiatric explanation for some of the incongruities in conduct within national leadership. Now, to tell the truth, I have begun to seriously address the issue of which section of society requires the services of a psychiatrist. The contest for a seizure of rationality is now so polarized that I am quite reconciled to the fact it could be those of us on this side, not the opposing school of thought that ought to declare ourselves candidates for a lunatic asylum. So be it. While that decision hangs in the balance however, the forum is open. Let both sides continue to address our cases to the electorate, but also prepare to submit ourselves for psychiatric examination.

The time being so close to electoral decision, we can understand the haste of some to resort to shortcuts. In the process however, we should not commit the error of opening the political space to any alternative whose curative touch to national afflictions have proven  more deadly than the disease. In order to reduce the clutter in our options towards the forthcoming elections, we urge a beginning from what we do know, what we have undergone, what millions can verify, what can be sustained by evidence accessible even to the school pupil, the street hawker or a just-come visitor from outer space. Leaving Buhari aside for now, I propose a commencing exercise that should guide us along the path of elimination as we examine the existing register of would-be president. That initial exercise can be summed up in the following speculation: “If it were possible for Olusegun Obasanjo, the actual incumbent, to stand again for election, would you vote for him?”

            If the answer is “yes”, then of course all discussion is at an end. If the answer is ‘No’ however, then it follows that a choice of a successor made by Obasanjo should be assessed as hovering between extremely dangerous and an outright kiss of death. The degree of acceptability of such a candidate should also be inversely proportionate to the passion with which he or she is promoted by the would-be ‘godfather’. We do not lack for open evidence about Obasanjo’s passion in this respect. From Lagos to the USA, he has taken great pains to assure the nation and the world that the anointed NPN presidential flag bearer is guaranteed, in his judgment, to carry out his policies. Such an endorsement/anointment is more than sufficient, in my view, for public acceptance or rejection. Yar’Adua’s candidature amounts to a terminal kiss from a moribund regime. Nothing against the person of this – I am informed - personable governor, but let him understand that in addition to the direct source of his emergence, the PDP, on whose platform he stands, represents the most harrowing of this nation’s nightmares over and beyond even the horrors of the Abacha regime. If he wishes to be considered on his own merit, now is time for him, as well as others similarly enmeshed, to exercise the moral courage that goes with his repudiation of that party, a dissociation from its past, and a pledge to reverse its menacing future. We shall find him an alternative platform on which to stand, and then have him present his credentials along those of other candidates engaged in forging a credible opposition alliance. Until then, let us bury this particular proposition and move on to a far graver, looming danger, personified in the history of General Buhari.

           

The grounds on which General Buhari is being promoted as the alternative choice are not only shaky, but pitifully naive.  History matters. Records are not kept simply to assist the weakness of memory, but to operate as guides to the future. Of course, we know that human beings change. What the claims of personality change or transformation impose on us is a rigorous inspection of the evidence, not wishful speculation or behind-the-scenes assurances. Public offence, crimes against a polity, must be answered in the public space, not in caucuses of bargaining. In Buhari, we have been offered no evidence of the sheerest prospect of change. On the contrary, all evident suggests that this is one individual who remains convinced that this is one ex-ruler that the nation cannot call to order.

Buhari – need one remind anyone - was one of the generals who treated a Commission of Enquiry, the Oputa Panel, with unconcealed disdain. Like Babangida and Abdusalami, he refused to put in appearance even though complaints that were tabled against him involved a career of gross abuses of power and blatant assault on the fundamental human rights of the Nigerian citizenry.  

            Prominent against these charges was an act that amounted to nothing less than judicial murder, the execution of a citizen under a retroactive decree. Does Decree 20 ring a bell? If not, then, perhaps the names of three youths - Lawal  Ojuolape (30), Bernard Ogedengbe (29) and Bartholomew Owoh (26) do. To put it quite plainly, one of those three – Ogedengbe - was executed for a crime that did not carry a capital forfeit at the time it was committed. This was an unconscionable crime, carried out in defiance of the pleas and protests of nearly every sector of the Nigerian and international community – religious, civil rights, political, trade unions etc. Buhari and his sidekick and his partner-in-crime, Tunde Idiagbon persisted in this inhuman act for one reason and one reason only: to place Nigerians on notice that they were now under an iron, inflexible rule, under governance by fear.

The execution of that youthful innocent – for so he was, since the punishment did not exist at the time of commission - was nothing short of premeditated murder, for which the perpetrators should normally stand trial upon their loss of immunity. Are we truly expected to forget this violation of our entitlement to security as provided under existing laws? And even if our sensibilities have become blunted by succeeding seasons of cruelty and brutality, if power itself had so coarsened the sensibilities also of rulers and corrupted their judgment, what should one rightly expect after they have been rescued from the snare of power” At the very least, a revaluation, leading hopefully to remorse, and its expression to a wronged society. At the very least, such a revaluation should engender reticence, silence.  In the case of Buhari, it was the opposite. Since leaving office he has declared in the most categorical terms that he had no regrets over this murder and would do so again.

           

Human life is inviolate. The right to life is the uniquely fundamental right on which all other rights are based. The crime that General Buhari committed against the entire nation went further however, inconceivable as it might first appear. That crime is one of the most profound negations of civic being.  Not content with hammering down the freedom of expression in general terms, Buhari specifically forbade all public discussion of a return to civilian, democratic rule. Let us constantly applaud our media – those battle scarred professionals did not completely knuckle down. They resorted to cartoons and oblique, elliptical references to sustain the people’s campaign for a time-table to democratic rule. Overt agitation for a democratic time table however remained rigorously suppressed – military dictatorship, and a specifically incorporated in Buhari and Idiagbon was here to stay. To deprive a people of volition in their own political direction is to turn a nation into a colony of slaves. Buhari enslaved the nation. He gloated and gloried in a master-slave relation to the millions of its inhabitants. It is astonishing to find that the same former slaves, now free of their chains, should clamour to be ruled by one who not only turned their nation into a slave plantation, but forbade them any discussion of their condition.

           

So Tai Solarin is already forgotten? Tai who stood at street corners, fearlessly distributing leaflets that took up the gauntlet where the media had dropped it. Tai who was incarcerated by that regime and denied even the medication for his asthmatic condition? Tai did not ask to be sent for treatment overseas; all he asked was his traditional medicine that had proved so effective after years of struggle with asthma!

           

Nor must we omit the manner of Buhari coming to power and the pattern of his ‘corrective’ rule. Shagari’s NPN had already run out of steam and was near universally detested – except of course by the handful that still benefited from that regime of profligacy and rabid fascism. Responsibility for the national condition lay squarely at the door of the ruling party, obviously, but against whom was Buhari’s coup staged? Judging by the conduct of that regime, it was not against Shagari’s government but against the opposition. The head of government, on whom primary responsibility lay, was Shehu Shagari. Yet that individual was kept in cozy house detention in Ikoyi while his powerless deputy, Alex Ekwueme, was locked up in Kiri-kiri prisons. Such was the Buhari notion of equitable apportionment of guilt and/or responsibility.

And then the cascade of escapes of the wanted, and culpable politicians. Manhunts across the length and breadth of the nation, roadblocks everywhere and borders tight as steel zip locks. Lo and behold, the chairman of the party, Chief Akinloye, strolled out coolly across the border. Richard Akinjide, Legal Protector of the ruling party, slipped out with equal ease. The Rice Minister, Umaru Dikko, who declared that Nigerians were yet to eat from dustbins - escaped through the same airtight dragnet. The clumsy attempt to crate him home was punishment for his ingratitude, since he went berserk when, after waiting in vain, he concluded that the coup had not been staged, after all, for the immediate consolidation of the party of extreme right-wing vultures, but for the military hyenas.   

The case of the overbearing Secretary-General of the party, Uba Ahmed, was even more noxious. Uba Ahmed was out of the country at the time. Despite the closure of the Nigerian airspace, he compelled the pilot of his plane to demand special landing permission, since his passenger load included the almighty Uba Ahmed. Of course, he had not known of the change in his status since he was airborne.  The delighted airport commandant, realizing that he had a much valued fish swimming willingly into a waiting net, approved the request. Uba Ahmed disembarked into the arms of a military guard and was promptly clamped in detention.  Incredibly, he vanished a few days after and reappeared in safety overseas. Those whose memories have become calcified should explore the media coverage of that saga. Buhari was asked to explain the vanished act of this much prized quarry and his response was one of the most arrogant levity. Coming from one who had shot his way into power on the slogan of ‘dis’pline’, it was nothing short of impudent.

           

Shall we revisit the tragicomic series of trials that landed several politicians several lifetimes in prison? Recall, if you please, the ‘judicial’ processes undergone by the septuagenarian Chief Adekunle Ajasin.  He was arraigned and tried before Buhari’s punitive tribunal but acquitted. Dissatisfied, Buhari ordered his re-trial. Again, the Tribunal could not find this man guilty of a single crime, so once again he was returned for trial, only to be acquitted of all charges of corruption or abuse of office. Was Chief Ajasin thereby released? No! He was ordered detained indefinitely, simply for the crime of winning an election and refusing to knuckle under Shagari’s reign of terror. 

The conduct of the Buhari regime after his coup was not merely one of double, triple, multiple standards but a cynical travesty of justice. Audu Ogbeh, currently chairman of the Action Congress was one of the few figures of rectitude within the NPN. Just as he has done in recent times with the PDP, he played the role of an internal critic and reformer, warning, dissenting, and setting an example of probity within his ministry. For that crime he spent months in unjust incarceration. Guilty by association? Well, if that was the motivating yardstick of the administration of the Buhari justice, then it was most selectively applied.  The utmost severity of the Buhari-Idiagbon justice was especially reserved either for the opposition in general, or for those within the ruling party who had showed the sheerest sense of responsibility and patriotism.

Shall I remind this nation of Buhari’s deliberate humiliating treatment of the Emir of Kano and the Oni of Ife over their visit to the state of Israel? I hold no brief for traditional rulers and their relationship with governments, but insist on regarding them as entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of any Nigerian citizen. This royal duo went to Israel on their private steam and private business. Simply because the Buhari regime was pursuing some antagonistic foreign policy towards Israel, a policy of which these traditional rulers were not a part, they were subjected on their return to a treatment that could only be described as a head masterly chastisement of errant pupils. Since when, may one ask, did a free citizen of the Nigerian nation require the permission  of a head of state to visit a foreign nation that was willing to offer that tourist a visa.?

One is only too aware that some Nigerians love to point to Buhari’s agenda of discipline as the shining jewel in his scrap-iron crown. To inculcate discipline however, one must lead by example, obeying laws set down as guides to public probity. Example speaks louder than declarations, and rulers cannot exempt themselves from the disciplinary strictures imposed on the overall polity, especially on any issue that seeks to establish a policy for public well-being.  The story of the thirty something suitcases – it would appear that they were even closer to fifty - found unavoidable mention in my recent memoirs, YOU MUST SET FORTH AT DOWN, written long before Buhari became spoken of as a credible candidate.  For the exercise of a changeover of the national currency, the Nigerian borders – air, sea and land – had been shut tight. Nothing was supposed to move in or out, not even cattle egrets.

Yet a prominent camel was allowed through that needle’s eye. Not only did Buhari dispatch his aide-de-camp, Jokolo – later to become an emir -  to facilitate the entry of those cases, he ordered the redeployment – as I later discovered - of the Customs Officer who stood firmly against the entry of the contravening baggage. That officer, the incumbent Vice-president is now a rival candidate to Buhari, but has somehow, in the meantime, earned a reputation that totally contradicts his conduct at the time.  Wherever the truth lies, it does not redound to the credibility of the dictator of that time, General Buhari whose word was law, but whose allegiances were clearly negotiable.

First Nigerian Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Nigeria

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Nigeria

Constitution President (List) Goodluck Jonathan Vice-President Namadi Sambo Cabinet Federal Parastatals National Assembly Senate House of Representatives Supreme Court States State governors Local Government Areas Zones Elections Presidential: 2007, 2011 Parliamentary: 2007, 2011 Political parties Foreign relations Human rights

Nigeria Portal ·  Politics Portal Other countries view talk edit

The First Republic was the republican government of Nigeria between 1963 and 1966 governed by the first republican constitution.

Contents 1 Founding (1963) 2 Presidents 3 Prime ministers 4 Political parties 5 Politics 6 Notable politicians 7 The coup 8 Civil war and beyond: 1966-1979 9 See also 10 References

Founding (1963)

Nigeria gained independence from Britain on October 1, 1960, when the Declaration of Independence was signed in the main boardroom of the Federal Palace Hotel. It was declared a republic three years later on October 1, 1963. The constitution and Westminster system of government were inherited from the British colonialists.

Presidents

Ceremonial Presidents during the Nigerian First Republic

President	Term	Party
Nnamdi Azikiwe	October 1, 1963 - January 16, 1966	NCNC

Prime ministers

Prime Ministers during the Nigerian First Republic

Prime Minister	Term	Party
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa	October 1, 1963 - January 16, 1966	NPC

Political parties

• Action Group (AG)
• Borno Youth Movement (BYM)
• Democratic Party of Nigeria and Cameroon (DPNC)
• Dynamic Party (DP)
• Igala Union (IU)
• Igbira Tribal Union (ITU)
• Midwest Democratic Front (MDF)
• National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons/National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC)
• Niger Delta Congress (NDC)
• Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP)
• Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU)
• Northern People's Congress (NPC)
• Northern Progressive Front (NPF)
• Republican Party (RP)
• United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC)
• United National Independence Party (UNIP)
• Zamfara Commoners Party (ZCP)

Politics

The country was split into three geopolitical regions—Western Region, Eastern Region and Northern Region—and its political parties took on the identities and ideologies of each region. The Northern People's Party (NPC) represented the interests of the predominantly Hausa/Fulani Northern Region], the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC)] (later renamed to "National Council of Nigerian Citizens") represented the predominantly Igbo Eastern Region, and the Action Group (AG) dominated the Yoruba Western Region. The NPC took control of the federal parliament, and formed a coalition government with the NCNC. Undisputed Nigerian strong-man Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, leader of the NPC, was poised to become the Prime Minister, but instead he chose to become the Premier of the Northern Region, and supported his deputy Tafawa Balewa's candidacy for Prime Minister. This raised suspicions amongst the southern politicians, who resented the idea of a federal government controlled by a regional leader through his designated proxy. In the end, Tafawa Balewa of NPC was named Prime Minister and Head of Government, and Nnamdi Azikiwe of NCNC was named President.
At Nigeria's independence, the Northern Region gained more seats in parliament than both Eastern and Western regions combined—this would cement Northern dominance in Nigerian politics for years to come. Resentment amongst southern politicians precipitated into political chaos in the country. Obafemi Awolowo, Premier of Western Region, was charged with sedition and convicted in a controversial trial. With incarceration of Awolowo, Samuel Akintola was elected as the Premier of Western Region. Because Akintola was an ally of Ahmadu Bello, the undisputed strong man of Nigeria, Akintola was criticized as beiing a tool of the North.^[1] As premier of the West, Akintola presided over the most chaotic era in Western Region—one which earned it the nickname "the Wild-Wild West". However, as late as Thursday, January 13, 1966, Balewa had announced that the federal government was not going to intervene in the West.^[2] However, the very next day, Akintola, premier of the West met with his ally and Nigeria's undisputed strong-man Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, premier of the North and party boss of NPC party to which Balewa belonged.^[3] At the same time a top-level security conference in Lagos was taking place which was attended by most of the country's senior army officiers. All of this activity created rumors that the Balewa government would be forced to crack down on lawlessness in the West using military might.^[4]

Notable politicians

• 

  
  Jaja Wachuku
  Foreign Minister
  (1961 - 1965)
  

The coup

The political unrest during the mid-1960s culminated into Nigeria's first military coup d'état. On 15 January 1966, Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and his fellow rebel soldiers (most of who were of southern extration) and were led by Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna of the Nigerian Army, executed a bloody takeover of all institutions of government. Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, was assassinated along with the premier of Northern Nigeria, strong-man Ahmadu Bello the Sardauna of Sokoto,^[5] Samuel Akintola, premier of the West^[6] and Festus Okotie-Eboh, the Finance Minister. [1]. It is not clear whether President Azikiwe's life was spared because he was out of the country at the time, or whether he had been informed about the impending coup and was out of the country so his life could be spared. Major-General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi took control as the first Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria on January 16, 1966.^[7]

Civil war and beyond: 1966-1979

The republic would be torn by the secession of Biafra and the ensuing civil war from 1966-1970. After Biafra was overrun and the nation re-unified, military rule continued for another nine years, implementing Nigerianization of foreign businesses. Eventually, elections were held in 1979 leading the way to the Nigerian Second Republic.

See also

• Nigerian Civil War
• Nigerian Second Republic (1979 - 1983)
• Nigerian Third Republic (1993)
• Nigerian Fourth Republic (1999 - present)

THE VATSA CONSPIRACY By Nowa Omoigui, (MD, MPH, FACC)

In Nigeria, beginning in the wee hours of December 17th, 1985 and extending for the next two weeks, over one hundred airforce, army and naval officers were arrested en masse for allegedly plotting to overthrow the 4 month old government of Major General Ibrahim Babangida who had himself come to power on August 27, 1985 in a palace coup against Major General Buhari.  After a Preliminary Special Investigation Panel chaired by Brigadier Sani Sami, selected cases were forwarded for court martial.  Beginning on Monday 27th January 1986, 17 officers were tried at the Brigade of Guards HQ in Victoria Island, Lagos, by a Special Military Tribunal. The Tribunal was convened by Major General DY Bali, then Minister of Defence and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, under the Treason and other offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree No.1 of 1986 with reference to Section 37(2) of the Criminal code.   Separately, Brigadier Malami Nassarawa, Wing Commander J Uku, and Lt. Peter Odoba were also tried on different charges.  Squadron Leader Effanga and Wing Commander Ekanem were discharged and acquitted in a no-case submission. The Tribunal comprised Major General Charles B. Ndiomu (Chairman), Brigadier Yerima Y Kure, Commodore Murtala A. Nyako, Colonel Rufus Kupolati, Group Captain Anthony Ikhazobor (later replaced by Colonel Opaleye when Lt. Col Bitiyong objected to his presence), Lt. Col. D. Mohammed and Alhaji Mamman Nassarawa (Commissioner of Police).  There were two waiting members, namely Col. E. B. Opaleye (until he replaced Ikhazobor), and Lt. Col. M M Bukar.  The Judge Advocate was Major A. Kejawa.  The prosecution team comprised Colonel Lawrence Uwumarogie, Major N N Mazda, Major B Makanju, and Captain Y. A. Ahmadu. The trial was conducted under the watchful eyes of the military intelligence directorate headed at that time by Colonel Akilu. The following were accused:  Major-Gen Mamman Vatsa, Lt. Col. Musa Bitiyong, Lt. Col. Christian A. Oche, Lt. Col. Michael A. Iyorshe, Lt. Col. M. Effiong, Major D. I. Bamidele, Major D. E. West, Major J. O. Onyeke, Major Tobias G. Akwashiki, Captain G.I.L. Sese, Lt. K.G. Dapka, Commodore A. A. Ogwiji, Wing Commander B. E. N. Ekele, Wing Commander Adamu C. Sakaba, Squadron Leader Martin Olufolorunsho Luther, Squadron Leader C. Ode and Squadron Leader A. Ahura. It was alleged that the plot was financed by General Vatsa using the cover of a farming loan to Lt. Col Musa Bitiyong.  General Vatsa denied any intent that monies he had given to Bitiyong were meant for that purpose, but Bitiyong allegedly shared some of it for travel expenses with two other accused officers and was said (at a meeting in Makurdi, which Vatsa did not attend) to have promised to get more from the source when it became obvious that funding a coup in Nigeria would require much more than the 10,000 naira he allegedly had at his disposal  (As of 1985, it was said that a coup would require no less than 50-100,000 naira to implement).  However, at no point in time did Vatsa actually meet with or discuss coup plotting or financing with anyone-else. Indeed, other than Bitiyong, who had a close relationship with the General, the other alleged key conspirators, I am told, never viewed themselves as working for or on behalf of Vatsa, although for lack of funds, two of them reluctantly accepted using part of the "farm money" for odds and ends.  Sources say, however, that Vatsa maintained to the very end that the money was for farming.  Others allege, however, that after being tortured for two days, Bitiyong implicated Vatsa by making reference to certain private political conversations they had, which Vatsa denied.  But Vatsa was accused of harboring "bad blood" against his friend and classmate Babangida, dating back to the Buhari regime and possibly earlier.  He was also obliquely accused of reporting Babangida's coup plot to Buhari before he left the country for pilgrimage along with Major General Tunde Idiagbon in August.   Actions he later took as a Minister to accelerate many military applications for certificates of occupancy for land in Abuja, came to be viewed as efforts to buy support among one or two of the plotters.  Then rumors that a civilian had introduced him at a party as Nigeria's next President were even aired.  All of this is of course circumstantial.  But they took him to the stake, which was quite an anti-climax to the career of a brilliant man who (until then, if the government is to be believed) never took part in any coup in Nigeria.  Indeed, Mamman Vatsa was the first to go on air in Calabar to denounce the Dimka coup and was later the Secretary of the Obada panel that tried Dimka and others in 1976 (see The Dimka's Coup Attempt of February 13, 1976). This little detail may have earned him some latent enmity in certain circles of the Army which later contributed to his death. Very briefly, the basic outlines of the alleged Vatsa conspiracy of 1985, as one can glean from publications and interviews is as follows: Lt. Col. Musa Bitiyong, based in Lagos, held a discussion [about the removal of Buhari] when General Vatsa came back from Mecca in August 1985.  Bitiyong urgently sent for Lt. Col Iyorshe to come down from Kaduna in September 1985. The young Captain who acted as an innocent go-between was later charged but acquitted.  Bitiyong then presented Iyorshe with documents alleging serious acts of impropriety against certain personalities in the new régime with regards to army and defence equipment maintenance contracts.  Being the puritanical, very professional and highly moralistic officer he was, the usually unflappable Iyorshe got upset.  In October he discussed the matter further with Lt. Col Oche of military intelligence who also allegedly revealed other allegedly incriminating documents related to trafficking, particularly as it affected the release of some persons who had previously been detained by the Buhari regime. Concerns then emerged about the long-term threat of the new regime to the military as a disciplined professional fighting organization and the country as a whole, through the legitimization of serial coups in which the same characters always featured.  It was felt that Nigeria deserved better and that the armed forces should be saved from corruption and professional decay.  This basic concern for professional ethos was amplified by concerns that the new regime intended to take the IMF loan and plunge the country into poverty.   As Lt. Col Iyorshe, reportedly put it:  "What I personally feel is that the nation itself needed a better deal. There have always been people whose only ambition is to lead, not serving any national interest. There has always been individual, tribal or business rights, never the rights of this nation to a better image; social, economic, political and military programs and plans. Nigeria deserves a group of people or leaders transparently honest enough to publish all their assets and liabilities on the pages of newspapers for the world to see. Not a nation where anybody will be allowed to have a foreign bank account let alone the millions stored away. The nation should be such that any Nigerian regardless of his tribe or religion will have the right to aspire to the leadership or rulership of the country. Nigeria was fast sinking to a state of despondency and anarchy. They never and still never trust their leaders. The anarchy at our airports characterises the state of the nation. Corruption is rife in this country and transcends all spheres of life. It is something the nation has to solve. Professional incompetence and mediocrity are rewarded whereas hard work is mocked. Within the military, the situation was and still is very tense. The welfare of soldiers is totally neglected such that soldiers still live in batchers over ten years after the civil war; no uniforms, no drugs in the hospitals; soldiers are being subjected to too much guard duties, little or no chance to themselves and their families. The discipline in the army in particular was deteriorating rapidly as exemplified by the report of what happened in Lagos on August 27th, 1985. The question of leadership was not discussed quite seriously, but it was with one exception, felt that the army had always dominated leadership. This was not an issue anyway as there were no solid plans regarding such things, the method of operation and the question of finance. I never considered myself for any higher military or political appointments. In fact, at first, all of us believed that if we succeeded, some senior officers of honesty would be called to rule. Personally up till quite recently, I never believed that coups solve any problem or else Bolivia would be paradise on earth. But then things seemed to get worse and worse."  What Col. Iyorshe was referring to by "the report of what happened in Lagos on August 27th, 1985" is the fact that soldiers who took part in the coup that brought General Babangida to power looted the personal property and possessions of General Buhari in Lagos. What he did not mention, however, was that a similar thing took place when President Shagari was overthrown by Buhari and others in December 1983.  Many of his life long priceless records and possessions have never been found to this day. In part because of the concern that the Army's armored corps was packed with officers loyal to the new regime, certain air force officers were then contacted (Martin Luther/Ben Ekele) and two meetings held, one informal meet in late November at the Sheraton Hotel Lobby in Lagos (Luther, Oche, Ogwiji, Bitiyong) and the other at a guest house in Makurdi (Iyorshe, Bitiyong, Oche, Ekele, Sakaba, Bamidele).   Aside this, Iyorshe and Bitiyong are said to have met a few times either in Lagos or Kaduna but there (reportedly) were no other meetings involving others.  Ogwiji, who was a Naval Officer, was invited (without prior knowledge) to the Sheraton meeting by his friend Oche.  However, no operational role was defined or envisaged for the Navy.   According to sources, the meeting was focused on political criticisms of the regime. Although conceivably seditious, no operational coup plans were discussed.  Ogwiji made no further contacts with anyone. At the Makurdi meeting, the potential role of the airforce was discussed.  The technical limitations preventing the use of either the MiG 21 or the Sepecat Jaguar in a ground attack role to neutralize pro-regime armored vehicles at the Ikeja Cantonment in Lagos were made clear by Ben Ekele (and supported by Adamu Sakaba) who advised the army boys that the air force could not play any useful role.  This discussion was, however, taken out of context and the public told that the conspirators planned to destroy Lagos. Before the meeting ended, Sakaba, who had supposedly been invited by his friend Ekele, even floated a totally fake competing coup plot (using the names of a group of officers) to which he said he belonged, as a decoy to dissuade the others in the group from proceeding.  Aside this, it was obvious that the group had no troops on the ground in Lagos, although the theoretical possibility existed that Iyorshe could use demonstration troops at the Command and Staff College in Jaji.  Hence the meeting broke up with no concrete operational plan nor was there any agreement to use force although some key elements (notably Iyorshe, Bitiyong and Oche) continued to monitor the national situation as well as investigate the so called "Group of Brigade Commanders" Sakaba had told them about. The Army at that time was awash with rumors of coup plots by different groups.  Everyone was watching everyone.  The bragadaccio and 'compensation' of the "boys" who carried out the August 27 operation did not help the morale of serious minded officers. Separately, other isolated discussions were held between certain officers.  Wing Commander Uku, for example, potentially attractive on account of his command of the Alpha Jets at Kainji, repeatedly refused to be drawn in and strongly advised against air force participation.  This fine officer was later charged with and jailed for concealment because he did not report the attempt to recruit him. Ideas such as the diversion of the Presidential jet to a pre-arranged location by Pilots in the Executive Fleet (like Luther and Ahura) were floated in other isolated conversations between some officers in Lagos. This scenario posited arresting the C-in-C and confronting him with allegations after which he would be asked to resign.  But, again, no actual plans were made. Oche allegedly met with Majors Akwashiki and Onyeke after a game of squash in Lagos and discussed national issues like the IMF loan, possibly to evaluate their suitability for recruitment.  But he never actually mentioned planning a coup with either officer. Akwashiki was still sentenced to death anyway, only to have his sentence commuted by the ruling council.  Some people claim incredulously that he was punished for not knowing he was being recruited by those who felt he owed them his sensitive position as the Commander of the 6th Battalion, Bonny Camp. He was later pardoned and released back to private life almost ten years later by a successor regime. Oche allegedly mentioned the existence of a conspiracy to his nephew, Peter Odoba, a young lieutenant at the Guards Brigade who then reported to a colleague of his, then Lt. (later Major) Al Mustapha, then Intelligence officer to the Chief of Army Staff.  Oche's nephew was, however, later charged with concealment and recommended for dismissal and a long jail term. Conflicting accounts abound about the precise nature of links between Iyorshe, Bamidele, West and Effiong, all based in the Kaduna/Zaria area.  Iyorshe and Bamidele were executed. Effiong's death sentence was commuted.  Bamidele's case raised an interesting side dilemma of how an officer (Bamidele) reported a coup plot in 1983 to his boss (Buhari) only to get arrested and charged for plotting. Then he saw this same boss who arrested him emerge as Nigeria's new leader a few months later after a coup.  The same officer (Bamidele) was then shot for allegedly knowing of and participating in another coup 2 years later without reporting to his boss. These, among many other areas are subject to future research, the memoirs of direct participants or the release of actual investigative,  court and AFRC records, not publicly available at this time. Eventually, Major-Gen Mamman Vatsa, Lt. Col. Musa Bitiyong, Lt. Col. Christian A. Oche, Lt. Col. Michael A. Iyorshe, Major D. I. Bamidele, Commodore A. A. Ogwiji, Wing Commander B. E. N. Ekele, Wing Commander Adamu C. Sakaba, Squadron Leader Martin Olufolorunsho Luther, and Squadron Leader A. Ahura were executed on March 5, 1986. The late Brigadier Malami Nassarawa's case was very curious and unfortunate.  As Commandant of the School of Infantry, he was reportedly arraigned for allegedly plotting a separate coup of his own.  When absolutely no evidence was adduced for that charge, he was accused of "insufficient loyalty" and then accused of conduct prejudicial to discipline, and then dismissed from the Army.  Then he was retried, and again acquitted.  His acquittal was upheld by the AFRC/PRC. Nevertheless he still languished in jail for many months with deteriorating health until his release was ordered by the Joint Chiefs Chairman.   Someday his case definitely will make for an interesting movie.   WHY WERE VATSA AND THE OTHERS SHOT?  In his landmark contribution to Nigerian military literature, titled "The Federal Republic of Nigeria Army", a former Army Chief, Major General MC Alli, wrote: "The soldier poet and poultry farmer, the peoples' General Mamman Vatsa, a minority of Nupe extraction from Niger State of Nigeria, allegedly masterminded the coup of 1986. It falls into the same category with General Babangida's coup [against Buhari].  It was motivated by an initial resentment immediately after the overthrow of General Buhari.  It cannot entirely be divorced from the incipient rivalry that lay latent between Generals Vatsa and Babangida, both from Niger State and of a common alma mater...No major tribe of regional group of political import can be identified.  Its conspirators comprised a motley of minorities of diverse background with a rallying point clubbed around General Vatsa's charisma.  Curbed in the embryo and tried in secrecy, their subsequent execution left understandable incredulity and doubt in the nobility of the regime it sought to overthrow. ....It failed because a mole compromised it.  The conspirators did not fall within the mainstream of the Army's stock of professional coup merchants and artisans.  Furthermore the regime of General Babangida had consolidated its tentacles on the network of national power through generous patronage and populist posturing.  This explains his audacity in executing General Vatsa, notwithstanding national and international appeals for reprieve.  General Babangida told me he was personally grieved by the insinuation that he executed the plotters because they were largely Christians. The pressure to execute them arose from the Plateau officers' axis.  Their officers had been victims of the same military tradition and laws..[i.e. during the Dimka coup of 1976]." However, Babangida himself has gone on to make additional comments clarifying why they were shot. During an interview with Eni-B of THIS DAY Newspapers in 2001 shortly after he turned 60, this is how (according to Eni-B) General Babangida justified the execution of General Vatsa and others in 1986:  "...Babangida said it was after Vatsa's coup was foiled that he realised his childhood friend and classmate planned the coup in line with a deep-seated personal rivalry, going back to their days as young officers. He said that unconsciously he and Vatsa had been great competitors; that as a young officer, whatever he did Vatsa equally did and whatever Vatsa achieved, he also went after. He said it was Lt. Gen. T.Y. Danjuma who pointed this out to him from their military records. Babangida gave this rationalisation to justify why he could not pardon Vatsa. He said when he first heard his childhood friend was planning a coup, he decided to do nothing but monitor him. He said however that Vatsa came to him to complain thus, "You heard I was planning a coup and couldn't even ask me. What kind of friend are you?" To this Babangida said he replied thus, "I didn't believe it or are you planning a coup?" He said Vatsa replied in the negative and the matter was forgotten until there was evidence of the plot. He said he instructed that Vatsa be arrested and detained so as not to allow him impede investigation. "However, he tried to escape through the air condition hole. I couldn't understand why he was trying to escape if he was not involved in a coup plot," Babangida said. He added with a frown, "But while watching the video of his execution, I turned my eyes away when I saw him remove his watch and ask a soldier to give his wife. I couldn't continue watching." He said he couldn't retire or imprison Vatsa because he believed the guy could still have planned a coup either in retirement or in prison. "Rawlings did it in Ghana and you know Vatsa was very stubborn," he said."    THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THE VATSA CONSPIRACY TRIALS  At this juncture, given the paucity of public information, one can only provide a limited perspective. Hopefully someday, all the official records will be released. The execution of Mamman Vatsa and others on March 5, 1986 was the first time the charge of 'conspiracy to commit treason' was being punished with the death sentence in Nigeria.  Until then 'conspiracy' in independent Nigeria had always been classified as a "treasonable felony" rather than "treason".  It attracted long prison sentences such as was the case with Chief Awolowo and others in 1962/63 and Bukar Mandara in 1982.  Planning or conceptualizing a coup was not regarded as the same as actually carrying it out (as was the case with Dimka and others in 1976). It may be argued whether the conspiracy proceedings that led to the execution of Banjo, Ifeajuna, Alale and Agbam in 1967 in Biafra fall into this category (Details of these executions will be featured in forthcoming WEEKEND MUSINGS). This legal issue needs to be clarified as are related matters regarding the protections of rights of persons undergoing military courts martial as guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution which is supreme.  Too many injustices have been swept under the carpet. Other than the officers executed and jailed, many were retired or dismissed arbitrarily some for merely being neighbors to those convicted, others for being "too serious".  Others had their names splashed across TV screens in Nigeria as suspects in a burst of pre-coup trial propaganda, only for their innocence to be later established behind closed doors.  The decimation of the principled element of the officer corps was relentless but, thankfully, never really completely succeeded.  The fiscal and human resource loss to Nigerian society was also immense. Many of the officers executed were of the highest caliber in the military, had required years of expensive training to produce, and were looked upon as models of professional military excellence.  Like the C-130 crash that occurred some years later, it was a national tragedy.  In furtherance of the climate of suspicion between the regime and the core military, some military services were defanged.  The systematic destruction of the Air Force, for example, started with those executions. Training and arming were severely curtailed. Even elementary items like jet fuel supplies to Air Force Bases were monitored and became centrally controlled. Until the advent of civil rule 13 years later in 1999, the air force did not get a chance to rebuild and reprofessionalize.  What little serious professional activity took place occurred in the setting of Liberian and Sierra Leonean operations. In the army, officers became increasingly suspicious of one another and esprit de Corps was undermined - just as the military was beginning to emerge from the terrible events of the late sixties and the hiccup of 1976.  "Settlement" became the order of the day.  Lt. Col. Mike Iyorshe's worst fears came to pass.  The decay was later captured in public comments made by former Army Chief General Saliu Ibrahim, himself initially a suspect in the rash of arrests back in 1985 when he was head of the Army faculty at Jaji .  The "Rawlings" rationalization for the executions in spite of pleas for clemency is short sighted.  Houphouet Boigny, for example, never one day executed anyone for planning a coup against him.   The regime may have felt the executions sent a message to future conspirators and would deter coups and secure the project.  But it did not.  A very violent attempt took place in April 1990 and the spokesman for that effort cited the executions of Vatsa and others in 1986 as one of several reasons. The experience of the Vatsa conspiracy trial and aftermath, among others has led some serious observers, like General MC Alli, to appeal to the government to establish a "coup commission" to look back into the crypts of our national history and exorcise some ghosts.  Lastly, the practice of holding on to corpses of executed servicemen, burying them enmasse, and denying family burial rites is antithetical to African culture.  I, for one, have appealed before and will appeal again that the remains of those shot over the years for real and imagined coups should be returned to their families for proper burial after forensic identification.   Then the healing can begin. Read the Biosketches of some of the Key players here

BROADCAST BY LT. COL. YAKUBU GOWON, AUGUST 1, 1966

'No Trust or Confidence in a Unitary System of Government': Lt.-Col. Gowon's Broadcast on the Assumption of Office, 1 August 1966

This is Lt-Col. Y. Gowon, Army Chief of Staff, speaking to you.
My fellow countrymen, the year 1966 has certainly been a fateful year for our beloved country, Nigeria. I have been brought to the position today of having to shoulder the great responsibilities of this country and the armed forces with the consent of the majority of the members of the Supreme Military Council as a result of the unfortunate incident that occurred on the early morning of 29th July 1966.

However, before I dwell on the sad issue of 29th July 1966, I would like to recall to you the sad and unfortunate incidents of 15th January 1966 which bear relevance. According to certain well-known facts, which have so far not been disclosed to the nation and the world, the country was plunged into a national disaster by the grave and unfortunate action taken by a section of the Army against the public. By this I mean that a group of officers, in conjunction with certain civilians, decided to overthrow the legal government of the day; but their efforts were thwarted by the inscrutable discipline and loyalty of the great majority of the Army and the other members of the armed forces and the police. The Army was called upon to take up the reins of government until such time that law and order had been restored. The attempt to overthrow the government of the day was done by eliminating political leaders and high-ranking Army officers, a majority of whom came from a particular section of the country. The Prime Minister lost his life during this uprising. But for the outstanding discipline and loyalty of the members of the Army who were most affected, and the other members of the armed forces and the police, the situation probably could have degenerated into a civil war.

There followed a period of determined effort of reconstruction ably shouldered by Maj-Gen. J. T. U. Aguiyi-Ironsi but, unfortunately, certain parties caused suspicion and grave doubts of the Government's sincerity in several quarters. Thus, coupled with the already unpleasant experience of the 15th January still fresh in the minds of the majority of the people, certain parts of the country decided to agitate against the military regime which had hitherto enjoyed country-wide support. It was, unfortunately, followed by serious rioting and bloodshed in many cities and towns in the north.

There followed a period of uneasy calm until the early hours of 29th July 1966, when the country was once again plunged into another very serious and grave situation, the second in seven months. The position on the early morning of 29th July was a report from Abeokuta garrison, that there was a mutiny and that two senior and one junior officers from a particular section of the country were killed. This soon spread to Ibadan and Ikeja. More casualties were reported in these places. The Supreme Commander was by this time at Ibadan attending the natural rulers' conference and was due to return on the afternoon of 29th July. The Government Lodge was reported attacked and the last report was that he and the West Military Governor were both kidnapped by some soldiers. Up till now, there is no confirmation of their whereabouts. The situation was soon brought under control in these places. Very shortly afterward, at about the same time, there was a report that there were similar disturbances among the troops in the North, and that a section of the troops had taken control of all military stations in the North as well. The units of Enugu and the garrison at Benin were not involved. All is now quiet and I can assure the public that I shall do all in my power to stop any further bloodshed and to restore law, order and confidence in all parts of the country with your co-operation and goodwill.

I have now come to the most difficult part, or the most important part, of this statement. I am doing it, conscious of the great disappointment and heartbreak it will cause all true and sincere lovers of Nigeria and of Nigerian unity both at home and abroad, especially our brothers in the Commonwealth.

As a result of the recent events and the other previous similar ones, I have come to strongly believe that we cannot honestly and sincerely continue in this wise, as the basis of trust and confidence in our unitary system of government has not been able to stand the test of time. I have already remarked on the issues in question. Suffice to say that, putting all considerations to test-political, economic, as well as social-the base for unity is not there or is so badly rocked, not only once but several times. I therefore feel that we should review the issue of our national standing and see if we can help stop the country form drifting away into utter destruction. With the general consensus of opinion of all the Military Governors and other members of the Supreme and Executive Council, a decree will soon be issued to lay a firm foundation of this objective. Fellow countrymen, I sincerely hope we shall be able to resolve most of the problems that have disunited us in the past and really come to respect and trust one another in accordance with an all-round code of good conduct and etiquette.

All foreigners are assured of their personal safety and should have no fear of being molested.

I intend to continue the policy laid down in the statement by the Supreme Commander on 16th January 1966 published on 26th January 1966.

We shall also honour all international treaty obligations and commitments and all financial agreements and obligations entered into by the previous government. We are desirous of maintaining good diplomatic relationships with all countries. We therefore consider any foreign interference in any form will be regarded as an act of aggression.

All members of the armed forces are requested to keep within their barracks except on essential duties and when ordered from SHQ. Troops must not terrorise the public, as such action will discredit the new National Military Government. Any act of looting or sabotage will be dealt with severely. You are to remember that your task is to help restore law and order and confidence in the public in time of crisis.

I am convinced that with your co-operation and understanding, we shall be able to pull the country out of its present predicament. I promise you that I shall do all I can to return to civil rule as soon as it can be arranged. I also intend to pursue most vigorously the question of the release of political prisoners. Fellow countrymen, give me your support and I shall endeavour to live up to expectations. Thank you.

Source: A. H. M. Kirk-Greene. Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria: A Documentary SourceBook. (Volume I; Oxford University Press, 1971)