Sunday, 28 July 2013

Omatseye’s Obituary, By M T Usman


NIGERIA-UNREST-MAIDUGURI-SHUWA-FILESLast week’s IN TOUCH column was indeed an obituary of sorts – on the reputation and standing of Sam Omatseye as a political analyst/ public affairs commentator whose writings can serve as reference material on current developments in the country. The article under reference oozed bigotry, using Brigadier Alabi – Isama’s book and a series of interviews with General Akinrinade as props to impugn the reputation of the “others” of Nigerian politics. The Nigerian Civil War has had its fair share of heroes as well as villains and in Omatseye’s reckoning northern commanders constituted the latter group. Commanders and officers from the South who put down their war experience in books and extended press interviews are acclaimed. Not that they do not deserve it, but the element of self – promotion is clearly at work here. That aside, the performance of northern officers in that war can withstand the scrutiny of military historians.
It is both laughable and insulting to describe General Yakubu Gowon as a bumbling commander in chief. The needs of the moment, in times of peace or in war, determine the kind of leadership that emerges. Gowon was the type of personality prescribed by the temper of the time, both in the aftermath of the events of 1966 and the resultant Civil War. He became head of state not as a result of a compromise but because he was the most senior Northern officer.
The demands upon leadership in the circumstances of a civil war are markedly different from those in inter – state wars. A civil war has to be managed in such a way as to make reconciliation easier at its end. That was how Gowon directed the war, with maximum restraint but with the necessary firmness to achieve result. It began with “police action” before it transformed into full military operation after the rebel incursion into the Midwest. There was however no adoption of a scorched – earth policy or terrorising of the civilian population.
Turning a 10,000 – man mainly ceremonial army into a fighting force of over thirty thousand in the first six months of the war was no easy task. The command and control infrastructure of the military was rudimentary then, making micro-management of the war well-nigh impossible. It was therefore more practical to allow field commanders much latitude within the overall strategy adopted to prosecute the war. No account should be taken of Col Madiebo’s assessment of Gowon and his commanders. They won by pluck and Madiebo & co lost. What better evidence of bumbling success and brilliant failure?
The criticism of General Mamman Shuwa’s is equally laughable. Wars are won by capturing and holding territory, and 1 Division did that eminently. Fighting in the heart of Igbo territory where resistance would be stiffest, from the onset of the conflict, 1 Division held every territory it liberated from the rebels and provided the needed security and assistance to the inhabitants. Shuwa’s campaign in the northern sector was methodical and clearly effective going by the results. Compare that with the relative chaos in the southern sector where the 3 Marine Commando operated and to which the duo of Alabi – Isama and Akinrinade repaired after falling out with General Murtala Muhammed in the western sector. The Division’s campaign began to stutter when it left the friendly peoples of the Niger Delta and approached Igbo territory. The result was the loss of an under-strength brigade in the first attack on Aba and, more consequential to the war effort, the siege of federal troops in Owerri for six months. Col Utuk’s 16 8rigade was down to less than 200 soldiers when it broke the siege, carrying the body of the slain 2 i/c to his family in Benin.
If there had to be a hero of the Civil War Shuwa would be it. Pray who is more “tyrannous”, the generals who lost troops in the course of fighting or the one who plotted the ambush and murder of subordinates?
Gowon has no blood on his hands on account of the failure of the operations to cross the River Niger at Asaba to capture Onitsha launched by General Murtala Muhammed. Sadly, there was heavy loss of life but not on the scale being bandied about.
The tragic event at Asaba where many civilians were killed did not qualify as genocide. There was no premeditation either on the part of the federal government or General Murtala.
The position of the Midwest in the run – up to the start of fighting had nothing to do with the loss of lives of the Igbos and “other southerners” in the civil disturbances that took place in the North. Rather, it was deemed necessary for the Midwest to remain neutral in order not to cause in-fighting among troops repatriated to the region, the majority of whose officers were Ika-Igbo likely to be sympathetic towards their kinsmen across the Niger. The rebel Biafran invasion of the Midwest proved fears of fifth columnists right.
Murtala was not “from the old Midwest, now Edo, by birth.” He was born, bred and raised in Kano city, claims of his ancestral links with wheresoever notwithstanding; his northerness had never been in question.
It is a curious subversion of history to dwell on the events of May/June 1966, the counter-coup and the Civil War without recognising the proximate cause. January 15 was the fulcrum of all the tragic events in that period in Nigeria’s history. It is intellectual dishonesty to treat it as a foot-note in the rendering of our past.
Since this is a time of reminiscences here’s one as complement: it was reported that the Iraqi Revolution of 1958 alerted one of the victims of the January coup to the potential of the military in countries approaching independence from colonial rule. He therefore demanded, in the series of constitutional conferences being held preparatoy to independence, adequate representation for his region in the military of an independent Nigeria.
Writings by prominent actors in the drama of Nigeria’s history help to guide in the contemplation of a different trajectory for a better future for the country. No one has the right to use such works for unworthy causes.
M T Usman
NewsDiary

Friday, 26 July 2013

Drop that case, Jonathan


What does President Goodluck Jonathan aim to derive by taking legal action against the Leadership newspaper and two of its journalists -- Tony Amokeodo and Chibuzo Ukaibe? The journalists were charged at an Abuja Federal High Court on 11 counts of forgery and conspiracy. Their employer, Leadership newspaper, was also joined in the suit.
The defendants were charged with falsifying a document entitled “Bromide of the Presidential Directive” and intentionally publishing it on the front page of the newspaper edition of 3 April 2013, knowing that it could “be used or acted upon as genuine”. The case has dragged back and forth for three months now. When the Presidency first expressed indignation over the publication by Leadership newspaper, the newspaper said emphatically it stood by its story. That marked the beginning of angry exchanges between the newspaper group and the government.
In a feisty reply to the statement by Leadership newspaper that it would not retract its story, Reuben Abati, the president’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, wrote angrily in a press release: “The circulation of a fictitious ‘presidential directive’ that seeks in the main to cause civil strife, engender a breakdown of law and order, and negate the values of our democracy is a very grievous act indeed that should not be ignored. At its core, such a disruptive act erodes the ethos of governance and professionalism and naturally stirs up those entrusted with the protection of law and order; as it should also, every responsible citizen, interest group and the entire media. In that regard, President Jonathan did not have to issue any orders before those who have as much constitutional responsibility as the media; that is, the police, see the need to act in the public interest.”
While the government believed it had valid grounds to express outrage over the publication, the Leadership newspaper said the government was overstating the case. The newspaper was not willing to admit it erred and the government was adamant it had a clear case of forgery. The two sides were not prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue. 
Charges were first laid against the journalists and Leadership newspaper in mid-April 2013. On 2 May this year, the case was dropped after the initial six charges were withdrawn by the prosecution counsel. The accused journalists thought the allegations against them were over. Not so, it seems. One month later (June 2013), the Federal Government returned to the courts with fresh charges against the two journalists and Leadership newspaper.
It would appear the government’s recourse to legal action rather than direct engagement with the newspaper over the publication was designed either to intimidate Leadership newspaper or to extract an unreserved apology from the organisation or to send the unmistakeable message that it would no longer tolerate media reports that are intended to denigrate the character of the president. Whatever might be the reason for the legal action, it must be said the government acted rather harshly and imperiously. If Leadership newspaper had breached the criminal codes of the nation, the matter should be dealt with by the appropriate institution of law.
Directly or indirectly, Jonathan and the Presidency have no business descending to such a low level. Jonathan in particular must be mindful not to be seen to be acting like a vindictive autocrat who is intolerant of press criticisms. While one recognises the powers granted to the president by the constitution, it would be tyrannous for the president to use those powers obnoxiously.
This is not the first time that Leadership newspaper would be taken to court for irritating the Federal Government or a serving Nigerian president. In 2008, former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua took the newspaper to court over what the Presidency termed false reporting or misrepresentation of the President’s health condition. The government alleged at the time that Leadership newspaper deliberately published a misleading report about Yar’Adua’s declining health and embellished it with claims that Yar’Adua failed to turn up at official state functions which he was scheduled to attend. It was that report that triggered Yar’Adua’s anger. It did not matter whether he was in good health or poor health. Yar’Adua was able to direct his team of lawyers to start legal action against Leadership newspaper group.
What did Leadership newspaper say about Yar’Adua that infuriated the man? According to The Guardian (Sunday, 9 November 2008), Leadership newspaper reported on Saturday, 8 November 2008 that: “Yar’Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days... His deteriorating health prevented him from attending yesterday’s (last Friday’s) Jumma’at prayer at the National Mosque. Earlier, he had also failed to show up at Sheraton Hotel, where he was billed to attend a function along with the visiting German president. No excuse was advanced for the president’s absence on both occasions.”
On sighting the report, Yar’Adua and his aides were incensed, especially when presidential assistants said they recognised that Yar’Adua attended the events but the newspaper report stated the president was weighed down by his health problems that prevented him from attending the events. The Presidency said it had photographs and other proof to confirm that Yar’Adua attended his public duties.
Olusegun Adeniyi, acting in his capacity as Yar’Adua’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, presented a vigorous defence of the ailing president. He said: “There is no truth in the entire report and the lies on which it hangs are so easy to disprove that the only reasonable conclusion is that the publishers of the newspapers ran the report in furtherance of their reprehensible efforts to embarrass the President and destabilize his Administration… If it had any regard for the truth at all and made the least effort to confirm the veracity of the assertions in its report, Leadership newspaper would know that the claim that Yar’Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days is a big lie.”
Adeniyi’s strong denial of Leadership newspaper’s report showed the Presidency took the newspaper report as the hallmark of disrespect for the president. You could see a similar pattern in the serious tone with which Reuben Abati responded to the alleged offence committed by Leadership newspaper against President Jonathan.
In modern democracy, it is regarded as out of place for a serving president or prime minister to take legal action against a newspaper, regardless of the gravity of the offence committed by journalists or news organisations. Jonathan might claim that, in this case, his choice of legal action against the journalists and their employer should be seen as a righteous way to express anger rather than resorting to other more high-handed options such as sending armed soldiers to seal the newspaper premises. This was a common way through which military dictators in Nigeria suppressed press freedom.
Nevertheless, the fact that two journalists who work for Leadership newspapers were incarcerated by the police in the early days of this case showed that our law enforcement agencies have retained some of the remnants of the tactics used by military dictators to harass journalists and to restrict freedom of the press.
This case has exposed the contradictions in Jonathan’s working philosophy. Days after he was sworn in as president, Jonathan talked repetitively about his respect for press freedom and his determination to enforce the rule of law. After two years in office, we no longer hear him reiterate his mantra or see him put into practice his prior pledge.
Jonathan’s decision to take legal action against two journalists and their employer has obvious consequences for journalism practice in Nigeria and for the nation. The public can expect Jonathan to focus not on matters that require urgent state attention but on personal matters that contribute nothing to the advancement of the nation. Jonathan’s tenacity in taking journalists to court suggests that he will dedicate his precious time to screening daily newspaper reports in search of matters he might consider offensive to the president. Will Jonathan and his advisers be able to set aside valuable time to scrutinise newspaper pages in search of enemies?
There is even a more serious reason why Jonathan should drop the legal action against the two journalists employed by Leadership newspaper. Jonathan, like state governors, enjoys immunity from prosecution. Immunity for the president is recognised in the Nigerian Constitution. This implies that Jonathan, in his capacity as president, cannot be dragged to court to testify in his own case. The President, by virtue of the immunity he enjoys, will not be able to testify in court until he leaves office. The two journalists who are facing criminal charges cannot counter-sue Jonathan as they do not enjoy any immunity privilege as Jonathan does? There is no fairness in this case.
Defamation or deliberate falsehood that denigrates someone’s character should never be encouraged by newspaper owners and journalists. The right to publish has never included the right to defame or injure the personality of public officials. Press freedom carries associated obligations and responsibilities. Nevertheless, there are more pressing matters or obligations that should engage the attention of a president. To put it more forcefully, it is not the duty of Jonathan or his courtiers to comb the pages of daily newspapers in search of defamatory material. The office of president is a distinguished and venerable position. It must never be abused or belittled.
NVS

Love Breaks The Rules

By Femi Aribisala
A true believer only does things because it is the love thing to do.
In spite of several subtle nudging from the Lord about her deplorable condition, I refused to give Bolaji Ogundimu a housing loan.  My position was that several others applied before her.  So the Lord decided to set me up.  I needed to catch a plane out of New York.  By the time it was my turn, the counter was closed.  Then the Lord said to me: “So Femi, how do you expect to get on this plane?”  I finally saw the light and plea-bargained: “Only your love, Daddy; only your love can get me on this plane.”
On many occasions, Jesus broke the rules out of love.  He could not help himself; he had to respond in love.  When his mother told him at the wedding in Cana that they had run out of wine, he observed that it was not yet the time for miracles.  Jesus was following God’s timing.  But suddenly man’s needs preceded God’s timing.
The wedding hosts knew nothing about God’s timing.  Had they known, they might have scheduled the wedding for a later date.  But the love of God could not but respond to human need.  Accordingly, Jesus was often moved by compassion.  Some of his most astounding miracles came as a response to human need.  He multiplied loaves and fed the multitude because he was moved with compassion for people who had been without food for three days.  And so at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, Jesus was compelled to turn water into wine.  He did this out of season because he was moved by love.
Love overrules
The Greek woman who prayed to Jesus for the healing of her daughter did not understand the times and the seasons.  She was not a Daniel.  She was not a bible scholar.  She was not even a Christian.  All she knew was that her daughter was sick.  Therefore, she came and asked for the right thing but at the wrong time.  She asked for the healing of a Gentile when it was still the time of the Jews.  She came to ask the Lord for food when the children of the kingdom had yet to eat.  Jesus told her to wait.  “Let the children finish eating first.”  But love does not wait.  Her daughter jumped the queue and was healed.
Jesus tried to explain God’s love to hate-filled Jews.  He asked them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26).  The love of God says David’s “illegal” act was excusable because he was in need and hungry.  God responded to David not legally, but lovingly.  The mercy of God rejoiced over the judgment of God in David’s case.  But do we react the same way today as Christians?
Ambulances drive “illegally” on the wrong side of the road because they respond to emergencies.  If we insist that they keep to road safety rules, it can only be because the love of God is not in us.  Similarly, if we insist that people must wear certain types of clothing before they can come to church, then the love of God is not in us.  If keeping rules and regulations is more important to us than loving our neighbour, it is because we do not yet understand the love of God.
Acceptable motive
Loving our neighbour is more important than doing our duty.  The widow of Zarephath gave her last meal to the prophet and God blessed her.  Rahab lied to preserve the lives of the Hebrew spies in Jericho and God honoured her.  These examples showed love in action.  But it is significant that these expressions of love did not come from Jews.  They came from those outside of the church.  They came from those who were not bound by religion.  They came from those who did not know the right thing to do but who understood the love thing to do.
Is it legal to drive on the wrong side of the road?  Why do you drive on the right side of the road?  Do you pay tithes because it is the right thing to do?  Do you give offerings because it is the right thing to do?  A true believer does not do things merely because it is right or legal.  A true believer does things because it is the love thing to do.  The only valid reason acceptable in God for doing anything is the love of God.  Jesus says: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).  In which case the only reason why he wants us to keep his commandments is because we love him.  And the only commandment Jesus has given us is that we love God and love our neighbour as he loves us.
So we must not allow any bad shepherd (or pastor) to intimidate us into paying tithes by telling us we would be cursed if we do not do so.  We are not to do things because we are afraid of curses, or fear the windows of heaven will be shut against us.  All our actions must arise from the love of God and the love of our neighbours.
Loving kingdom
The Pharisees came to Jesus and asked him: “Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife?”  The question itself is based on wrong premises.  God is not legalistic.  The kingdom of God is not a legalistic kingdom.  It is a loving kingdom.  Who cares whether it is legal or not!  If it is legal for people to kill Jews, should we do so because it is the legal thing to do?
The question should have been: “Is it loving for a man to divorce his wife?”  ”Does the divorce of one’s wife show the love of God?”  Couched in this manner, the question would have been unnecessary.  Clearly, divorce does not show love but hate.  God hates adultery not because it is illegal, but because it is about hatred.  Adultery represents hatred and disregard for one’s spouse.
Let me tell you a parable.  When Nabal married Abigail, he gave her a list of do’s and don’ts.  It was so extensive, it was impossible to fulfil.  No matter how hard she tried, he would always find fault that she forgot to do something, or forgot to say something, or did something in a way different from the exact way he wanted it done.  He wanted his rice cooked in a particular way.  His meat had to be boiled in a particular way.  His shirt must be ironed in one way or you won’t hear the last of it.
Thank God, Nabal died prematurely.  Thereafter, Abigail became David’s wife.  After the marriage, she dutifully asked David for his own list of do’s and don’ts.  But David said he had none.  “I just love you,” he said.  “There are no laws, no rules, no regulations, and no guidelines.  Just love.”
Of such is the kingdom of God.
Vanguard

Tukur’s topsy-turvy peace mission

BY HENRY UMORU
THE Bamanga Tukur-led National Working Committee, NWC of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, last Monday, rolled out a list of 30 members under the name, ‘reconciliatory panel,’ with Governor Henry Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State, the home state of President Goodluck Jonathan, as chairman.
The idea of having a reconciliation committee to resolve the multiple crises bedeviling the PDP could have been a welcome development given that the party is preparing for the August 31 Special National Convention to correct the wrongs that were made in March 2012 when Tukur emerged as national chairman.
The issue of reconciliation also became imperative in the light of the approach of a tougher opposition in the form of the yet to be registered All Progressives Congress (APC) an amalgamation of opposition political parties including the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) and All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP).
The Dickson panel, which was inaugurated, yesterday, has Alhaji Asheik Jarma as deputy chairman and Amb. Umar Damagun as secretary. The members include Secretary, Board of Trustees (BoT), Senator Walid Jubrin; former Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu; Senator Hope Uzodinma; Prince Arthur Eze and Chief Onyema Ugochukwu.
PDP Chairman, Bamanga Tukur
PDP Chairman, Bamanga Tukur
Interests in the party
Announcing the composition of the committee, the party’s acting National Publicity Secretary, Tony Okeke said the reconciliation Committee was put up to ensure comprehensive reconciliation among members and interests in the party.
Other members of the panel are Dr. I. A. Obuzor, Alh. Salisu, Hon. Bello Mohammed Matawalle, Niyi Fadimula, Chief Jerome Eke, AVM Chris O. Marizu, Hon. Tijani Ibrahim Kiyawa, Dr. Christy Silas, Barr. Jangwe Yusuf, Mrs. Ngozi Olejeme, Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Yakubu Shehu, Mohammed Kuchazi, Mrs. Adedeji Otiti Olarenwaju, Chief Emma Iwuagwu, Sen. Umar Gada, Asiwaju Dosun Fatokun, Engr. Harold Eze, Hajiya Fati Sabo, Hon. Wakili Mohammed and Shittu Mohammed.
According to Okeke, the committee was set up to carry out a comprehensive reconciliation of aggrieved members of the party.
Avalanche of reconciliation panels: Before now, the PDP had put in place a couple of reconciliation committees including one led by former Vice President Alex Ekwueme.
The Ekwueme’s 11-member reconciliation committee had some of the party’s founding fathers and grandees such as former Minister of Finance, Adamu Ciroma; former Deputy National Chairmen, Bode George and Shuaib Oyedokun, former Governor of Plateau State, Fidelis Tapgun and former Minister of Information, Professor Jerry Gana among others.
The Ekwueme panel visited the six geo-political zones and raised the alarm that the party was in very bad shape, even as it discovered that only six out of the 34 founding members remained in the party at that time. The report of the Ekwueme committee as good as many thought it to be was, however, thrown into the dustbin. Ekwueme, understandably, was in the position to attest to the ill-health of the PDP given his age, experience and forthrightness.
Rather than carry out a holistic implementation of the Ekwueme report, Prince Vincent Eze Ogbulafor who became the new national chairman, set up another 18-member committee to review the report. It was headed by the former Minister of Defence, Dr. Haliru Bello Mohammed, the then deputy national chairman of the party.
Other members of the committee were Shuaibu Oyedokun, Shetima Mustafa, Ibrahim Ida, Martha Bodunrin, Hakims Agoda, Halim Idris, Frank Ogbuewu;  Onyeabo Obi and Aminu Wali, who is now Nigeria’s Ambassador to China.
Ogbulafor remarkably, did not give any reason for setting up a new panel but in a very tactical manner named his new committee as “elders committee” which he gave the task of ensuring “deep commitment towards fostering and consolidating reconciliation within the party”.
The 14-member elders’ committee, which had former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Senator Ike Nwachukwu, as chairman, was inaugurated on July 1, 2009 to among others ensure total reconciliation of members in states with crisis which then were Anambra, Kano, Bayelsa, Edo and Akwa Ibom among others.
Members of the Elders’ Committee were former Governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori; Prof. Jerry Gana; former Governor of Gombe State, Senator Danjuma Goje; Alhaji Dahiru Manga Ignatius Ajuru; Alhaji Shuaibu Oyedokun; Governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam; Senator Ayim Ude Chukwu; Hon. Dave Salako; Chief Ebenezer Babatope; Mrs. Herberta Okonofia and the present Minister of Women Affairs, Hajia Zainab Maina. Former Acting National Secretary who was then the Deputy National Secretary, Dr. Musa Babayo served as the secretary.
Just as the Ekwueme committee, the Nwachukwu team after much traveling and talking also came out with a report which is lying fallow somewhere in the national secretariat of the party.
It is thus interesting that the party has again come up with another reconciliation move. However, the thrust and components of the present trouble shooting move are being questioned.
There was also the move as disclosed by Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State that President Goodluck Jonathan would lead a panel to resolve the multiple crises in the party, but it received attacks especially from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the idea died on arrival.
But the panel resurrected in another form, this time with Dickson as the chairman. Dickson is Jonathan’s governor, whom critics said would not go against the wishes of President Jonathan and Tukur because he would want to come back again as governor.
If reports of men like Ekwueme, Nwachukwu, Gana, Oyedokun, Babatope, Yahaya Kwande and  Adamu Ciroma among others as assembled in the past were thrown into the dustbins and total reconciliation eluded the party, how far can Dickson’s committee go?
Needed muscle
Will Dickson have the needed muscle to bring former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Adamu Ciroma; Olusegun Agagu, Gbenga Daniel, Yayaha Kwande, Ayo Fayose, Caleb Olubolade, Christopher Alao- Akala, Rasheed Ladoja, Wole Oyelese, Chief Richard Akinjide, and the Ubas, Ukachukwu and Ulasi in Anambra, among others, together, and tell them the truth? Will he have the same muscle that Ekwueme, Nwachukwu, Babatope, Gana and others had in the past?
Will Tukur’s men like Senator Umar Gada, Shittu Mohammed, and Ibrahim Mantu go contrary to his wishes? How will these men reconcile Wammako, Nyako, Lamido, Kwankwaso with others? How will Dickson reconcile Amaechi with Jonathan and Tukur knowing what happened after the election of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum, NGF when Dickson, Akpabio stormed out, rejected the results where Amaechi scored 19 as against the 16 votes of Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State?
Skepticism trails move: Since the emergence of the committee, criticisms, skepticism have continued to trail the reconciliation train.
Chief of Staff, Rivers Government House, Mr. Tony Okocha, feared that the Committee might not achieve anything because the chairman is an interested party. Also, a former governorship aspirant in Adamawa State, Dr. Umar Ardo, described the panel as one that is dead on arrival. ‘’With all due respect, I write to respectfully urge the National Chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, and members of his National Working Committee, to kindly reconsider the appointment of Gov. Dickson of Bayelsa State as Chairman of the Reconciliation Committee of the party.
‘’Other than the fact that as a governor, Dickson would have little time to devote to such an onerous and time-consuming task, I also think that he is eminently unqualified to handle such an assignment. In the first place Dickson lacks the national exposure and experience that such a task requires.
Secondly, Dickson himself is a subject of conflict within the party apparatus and membership. The way and manner in which he was brought in as governor, and the furor and controversy that it generated across the country, drain him of all moral standing to undertake a reconciliatory mission.
Also, as a governor of the president’s own state, Dickson cannot be objective and fair in his judgment. Given that one of the most central causes of the present disputes within the party is the inordinate ambition of the president for 2015, I cannot see how Governor Dickson can depart from this goal should it be imperative for the committee to do so in the course of its assignment.
‘’In fact, Dickson’s appointment will only be seen as an act of nepotism aimed at satisfying the impulsive determination of the president to achieve his aspiration. This perception will automatically estrange most aggrieved members and stakeholders of the party. The committee will thus be dead on arrival.”
Given this view, which is shared by many members of the party it is not yet Uhuru for Bamanga Tukur. It is to be seen how far the Dickson’s panel will go.
Vanguard

Bola Tinubu: Of Opportunity and Responsibility – by Remi Oyeyemi


tinubu
In the days and months leading to the elections of 2003, there was a lot of confusion in the political firmament of the Yoruba Nation. Main reason was the prevarication of the Yoruba mainstream political leadership on whether to accept their wayward son, Olusegun Aremu Obasanjo, and support him for the second term elections or field another candidate on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). At that time, the political leadership in Yoruba Nation operated under the dual auspices of Afenifere and AD.
There were contending schools of thought on this dilemma. Some felt that an incorrigible prodigal son was a son nevertheless and the baby ought not be thrown out with the bathwater. Others believe Leopards never change their spots. They insisted Obasanjo could not be trusted and should not be touched with a long pole. The latter group were very vociferous but were in the minority. They lost out. Bola Tinubu was among the minority that lost out. The elections of 2003, lent credence to the fears expressed about Obasanjo as pinpointed by Tinubu et al. All those who gave Obasanjo benefit of the doubt were betrayed, stabbed in the back and rigged out of office to pave way for the members of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). It was only in Lagos State where Bola Tinubu held sway that the PDP did not have the chance to wrought their ruins. This, to a great extent, attested to his political sagacity.
After 2003 elections, Tinubu began to build a new coalition consisted of a new generation of Afenifere as evident in the birth of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) and the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN). It was a timely task embarked upon. It was the new direction that the people of the Southwest needed in the aftermath of the Obasanjo’s treacherous earthquake. Tinubu tapped into the psyche of the people and got a very favourable response. The results of his efforts were denied him in 2007 across the Southwest, except Lagos. This was followed by series of court cases that restored Osun and Ekiti States to the ACN. In 2011, Oyo and Ogun joined the ACN train. Today, the rest, as they always say, is now History. But that History, obviously, is yet to be concluded.
Right now Tinubu is arguably the de facto political leader in Yoruba nation because of the fact that the majority of the people in the Southwest have chosen the ACN. He is the leader of the party and all of the governors and other elected officials defer to him. Even, Governor Segun Mimiko of Labour Party has been careful enough not to be on his wrong side, at least openly. Tinubu looms large in the present political equation and this portends of great opportunities as well as grave responsibilities.
But the question now remains: How is Tinubu himself seeing his role presently? Is Tinubu a man of History, destined to leave indelible marks in the sands of time? Or is he just another “flash in the pan” politician, favoured by providence and happenstance? Is Tinubu seeing his role as an opportunity? If he sees this as an opportunity, of what kind is it? Does he see this as an opportunity to amass more wealth and create more cronies? Is this an opportunity to extend his tentacles just for the sake of it? Is this an opportunity to create a political Mafia in Yoruba Nation that opens its doors only to its cohorts and their hangers-on? Does this look like an opportunity to be a political godfather or a political leader? Does he want only those who see him as a tin god around him or those who would be willing to make him greater with great ideas? Or is his main goal to take over Yoruba Nation and use this as his negotiating chip on the wider Nigerian political pedestal?
Is this, to him, an opportunity to pull his Yoruba people to their destiny? Is he really out to use this opportunity to break a new dawn for the Yoruba Nation and set it on the path to greatness? Is this an opportunity to liberate the Yoruba Nation from economic stagnation and worsening social malaise? Is this an opportunity to foster the positives of Yoruba culture in lieu of modernity and racy technology of today’s world? What kind of opportunity does Tinubu considers this to be?
Does Tinubu see his present political preeminence as a responsibility? A responsibility to give genuine, sincere, committed, and dedicated leadership imbued with clear vision for the Yoruba people in the context of Nigeria? Is he really ready to lead the Yoruba people and by extension be a historical leader? Does he have the ability to bear the responsibility that comes with this political preeminence?
Does he have the moral discipline to lead the Yoruba Nation? Is he able to engage in self-denial as some situations would require, thus immunizing himself as a leader? Is he willing to deny himself gratifications of any kind? Is he willing to pay any price for the liberation and revitalization of Yoruba greatness? Or he is only concerned about what could accrue to him as the leader of the Party controlling the governments of the Yoruba States and elsewhere? What responsibility is he willing to undertake and what sacrifices is he willing to make to pilot Yoruba Nation in the way and manner its people would like? Is Tinubu willing to accept the responsibility for the consummation and the realization of the heartfelt dreams of Yoruba Nation in the context of Nigeria or his plans is to drag them along in the ambit of his personal interest and ambitions?
Or has Tinubu performed the providential role he is destined to play in Yoruba politics, in which case, he is not able to move the cart beyond liberating the Yoruba Nation from the stranglehold of the PDP? Will Tinubu be relevant in the immediate future calculation of the Yoruba Nation? Is Tinubu willing to consummate a consensus about the future of Yoruba Nation or it has to be the Gospel according to Tinubu, regardless whether that is what the cross section of Yoruba Nation might and or would want? Must the Yoruba Nation be ready to have a more adequately prepared and more suitable leader for the immediate future? Is Tinubu and his party just concerned about the Fiscal Federalism of the Nigerian state? Does that mean that the ACN does not share the yearnings of the average Yoruba about the structure of the Nigerian Federalism? Is this just all about money and not political self- determination per se? What is the agenda of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu?
Bola Tinubu is the Asiwaju of Lagos. Circumstances seem prepared to make him bigger and greater than that. But is he prepared for the concomitant responsibility that goes with that bigness? Is he disciplined enough to ascend to that greatness? Is he able to make enough sacrifice to attain that greatness? Is he pragmatically principled enough to climb onto that greatness? Is he selfless, committed, dedicated, dependable, reliable and clairvoyant enough to soar to this greatness? Right now, Tinubu has the “gift” of “life” as Anthony Robbins called it. This “gift” is resting on Tinubu’s laps as we speak. This is a “gift” of “privilege, opportunity, and responsibility to give something back by becoming more.” Does Bola Tinubu has the ability to “become more?” Does he have the character to “become more?” Has Tinubu the endowment to “become more?”
Tinubu has the ability to exercise a lot of power in Yorubaland today. To what end is he willing to use that power? How responsibly is he going to deploy this power? It is hoped that it is not in Tinubu’s character to exercise power without responsibility akin to what Rudyard Kipling characterized as “the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” How much responsibility is Tinubu willing to take on for the future of Yoruba Nation? How far is Tinubu willing to “carry the water” for the Yoruba Nation? How much inconvenience – social, financial, political, economic, religious and family – is Tinubu willing to suffer for any Yoruba cause that might emerge in the nearest future? Should the majority and or cross section of Yoruba people want self-determination in whatever colouration, is Tinubu willing to throw his hat into the ring?
It is fervently hoped and prayed that Asiwaju Bola Tinubu would not take the Yoruba people for granted in his calculations as he makes political forays into charted and uncharted waters. He needs to err on the side of caution and not see politics in everything. He needs to base his calculations on the yearnings of his Yoruba people. He needs to be able to isolate the desires of his people and contextualize his ambitions in such. If his ambition is contextualized outside the aspirations of the Yoruba Nation and its people, he would have himself to blame. The Yoruba people are long-suffering and patient, especially if they admire you. But they would not follow you to Golgotha, especially, if they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that you do not have their interest at heart.
Winston Churchill once contended that “responsibility is the price of greatness.” So, the question still remains: What kind of opportunity is this to Tinubu? Does he see any responsibility in his present opportunity? How much is Tinubu willing to give for the yearnings and aspirations of the Yoruba Nation as opposed to how much he could appropriate in terms of perquisites of whatever genre? Time will tell.
OsunDefender

CNPP demands Orubebe, Madueke, Ogiadomhe’s sack


Godsday Orubebe
 Group says Nigeria is sliding into a Banana Republic.
The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties, CNPP, has asked President Goodluck Jonathan to immediately relieve the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe, and his Petroleum Resource counterpart, Diezani Alison-Madueke, respectively, of their duties.
CNPP, in a statement by its Secretary General, Willy Ezeugwu, on Thursday, accused Mr. Orubebe of overheating the polity in his (Orubebe) native Delta State over his governorship ambition by defying a presidential directive on 2015 campaign.
It said the minister had continued to carry on with a larger than life image.
The group of opposition parties said unless Mr. Jonathan was not serious with his avowed war against corruption and political slandering and was only plating with the senses of Nigerians, should such public officers continue in office.
CNPP also said that what was happening in the oil sector was most damning as it shouldn’t be that oil companies indicted in the fuel subsidy fraud were still doing business with the federal government.
“Due to vested interest, public officers in the oil sector led by the petroleum minister, Allison Madueke and other PPPRA officials have re-established business with fraudulent oil companies indicted in the oil subsidy probe,” it said.
“This is most unacceptable and clearly a slap on the Nigerian people and seems to vindicate the saying that the Nigerian economy is ran on corruption. This we must rise against as a nation and force the President to do what is right and correct – sacking the minister and her cohorts.”
The group also asked the President to sack his Chief of Staff, Mike Ogiadomhe, over his role in misleading the administration and fostering corruption.
It launched attack on the director general of the nation’s satellite commission, Ahmad Rufai, noting that the latest embarrassment over the failure of the counting machine installed by the agency in the House of Representatives was just one of the many incompetence and fraud associated with the satellite agency since his (Rufai) era.
“If steps are not taken to relieve these public officers of their job immediately, we in union with the civil society will have no choice than to mobilise Nigerians on the street till this change is effected.
“We are gradually sliding into a Banana Republic where impunity continues to override our senses of responsibilities,” CNPP warned.
PremiumTimes

Prince Harry Talks of New Nephew


Prince Harry has said one of his duties as an uncle to his new nephew Prince George is "to make sure he has fun".

Harry said that he had already cuddled the prince, who was born on Monday, and has been named George Alexander Louis - Prince George of Cambridge.

Prince Harry said it was "fantastic to have another addition to the family", and that the newborn "was crying his eyes out" when he met him.

Prince Georgeis third in line to the throne, reports the BBC.

Prince Harry - who is now fourth in line to the throne - spoke while on a visit to a photographic exhibition in London documenting the work of his Africa-based charity Sentebale.

When asked what his mission was as an uncle he replied: "To make sure he has a good upbringing, and keep him out of harm's way and to make sure he has fun.

"The rest I'll leave to the parents."
DailyTimesNG