The honesty Buhari needs

 BY ABIMBOLA ADELAKUN 

| credits: neearo

I first met Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) at a press conference in 2010; he made quite an impression on me. He was at his charming best that night until moderators called for one last question. Then, I asked why he insisted on the contradiction of using the title of “General” while trying to be a civilian president.

My question was to probe if, by holding up his military title, he was passing a message about the kind of president he would be.

Buhari dropped all affability and responded in a rather offended tone,

“Because I earned it!”

He added he was not one of those who promoted themselves in the army without merit; it was deserved. I felt his response was rather arrogant, although later, I had a rethink. Maybe, his insistence of being a “General” was an honest self-presentation. That Olusegun Obasanjo expunged “General” from his titular achievements does not mean someone else should do it.

The second time I had to ponder Buhari’s “honesty” was while reading his 70th birthday interview in The SUN. It was shocking to read his justification of the decree with which his regime used to execute three young men. After so many years, Buhari still refuses to admit that his method of applying the law was wrong — morally and judicially. I was disturbed by Buhari’s sense of morality and wondered if, again, he was being his honest self, was arrogant, or he is simply a man who doesn’t think about things. By the way, after reading that interview, whatever respect and support I had for him whittled down.

Since then, I have read many articles about Buhari. His admirers talk endlessly about his “unimpeachable integrity” while others argue otherwise. Both sides have merits because, truly, Buhari is a bundle of contradictions. It is a shame that there has not been any engaging scholarship that has studied him –or other past leaders — in depth. What we have dotting our landscape are largely hagiographies written by hungry scribblers in need of quick naira notes. Nigeria is that kind of a place where intellectual jerks sit amidst the ruins of once upon a glorious university to write “bitter truths” about which ethnic professor was the first to climb to the moon with a ladder.

The Buhari personality deserves critical historical analyses. He is consistently sold as an honest man, one austere to the point of martyrdom; that his incorruptibility makes him the perfect candidate to cure the cancer of corruption that has practically eaten up Nigeria. But these promoters consistently fail to answer why Buhari who has never touched public funds has no problems mingling with corruption czars in Nigeria? The man has contested presidential elections thrice; it will be nice to know who his campaign sponsors are and what they do for a living. If he ever becomes president, will he throw the book at them and have them probed for corruption? If he decides to overlook their past, will that not mean he has to do same for the corrupt elements in the PDP too? These are no easy answers, I admit, but they are necessary to challenge the myth that he can solve Nigeria’s corruption problems.

Speaking of honesty, why is Buhari prepping for 2015 presidential race when in 2011 he announced he was contesting the third and final time? If he cannot stand by his own word now, how can he do so if he becomes president and he is faced with very complex situations that will tax his integrity?

I am definitely aware that Buhari has the constitutional right to run as many times as he chooses. He is donning his Messiah toga again even though his candidacy on the APC ticket signifies desperation and opportunism on his part and stagnation on his party’s. He is like an old masquerader who insists on doing the same energetic traditional dances on old trembling legs. His aides say he is above God in the PDP imagination but this is patently delusional. What reason does anyone have to fear Buhari?

If we take away the image of the incorruptible leader from him, what really is left? Does his contribution to national issues –from the questions of corruption to Boko Haram to federalism to electricity to poverty to Niger Delta to all that afflict us — show that the man has a higher grasp of issues more than President Goodluck Jonathan (who, by the way, still remains as clueless as ever)? If we compare the rhetoric of Buhari in 2003 with that of 2007, 2011 and 2013, are we likely to come off with the picture of a leader who has been seasoned by time? One who has –within the span of 10 years — improved on his understanding and articulation of the many problems of Nigeria? Or, all we will see is a man who rides the horse of war-against-corruption to death because he does not have more vibrant ideas? (Personally, I wonder if Nigerian leaders are corrupt because they lack the necessary foresight they need to perform or they fail to perform because their imagination is quenched by corruption?)

Mine is by no means a trivialisation of the endemic nature of corruption but if we analyse issues more carefully, is Nigeria’s problem wholly that of corruption? How come Asian countries manage to make progress despite the corruption in their systems? Is corruption Nigeria’s problem or something actually worse but manifests as such? The underlying sentiment of turning Buhari into a magic bullet is based on isolationist thinking that fails to situate a complex problem in proper context.

If Buhari himself will be honest with himself, he should own up that he is not what Nigeria needs, at least anymore. His 2015 candidature will be more of a distraction from main issues in a way that will allow incumbent forces a leeway back to power. Of course he can play a major role but his talk of if-my-party-fields-me-I will-contest is more of a forked tongue oratory than actual humility. It will not hurt him to admit that what Nigeria needs is not a man with a good image but someone who has a vision, and the energy and charisma to drive it; and that he is just not that person.

ThePunch

Breaking: Suntai unable to govern Taraba, he should return to U.S. for treatment- Lawmakers

Sani Tukur

Gov. Danbaba Suntai

The Taraba lawmakers met the governor on Thursday.

The Speaker of Taraba State House of Assembly, Haruna Tsokwa, has announced that the lawmakers have decided to ask Governor Danbaba Suntai to go back to the United States to continue his treatment.

The lawmakers asked the governor to return to the U.S. to continue his rehabilitation programme and only come back to run his office when he is fully fit.

Mr. Tsokwa, who addressed journalists in Jalingo on Thursday morning, said the decision of members follows their visit to Mr. Suntai on Wednesday night.

He said the lawmakers were convinced Mr. Suntai is not fit to return to office.

PremiumTimes

Opinion: If Buhari returns in 2015…

by Eric Osagie

If Buhari runs in 2015, he would be confirming what many of his adversaries and opponents had always suspected: That the whole merger proposition was all for the realisation of the ambition of Buhari and the ego of Bola Tinubu.

In a country soaked deep in greed and graft, especially of its ruling elite, General Muhammadu Buhari should be a natural material for the highest office in the land? Unfortunately, not so. Thrice (2003, 2007 and 2011), he ran for the presidency and thrice, he failed to make it.  Each time, he cried that the ruling party, which boasted it would continue to rule in the next 60 years, fixed the elections. 60 years? To do what?   Of course, elections are always neither free, nor fair and credible in Africa’s most populous nation. The winner keeps winning, mostly through foul means.  Democracy here is obviously government of the strong men, who often muscle their way through every election.

So, despite his incorruptibility, integrity and legendary disciplined disposition, people like Buhari, who even his adversaries acknowledge as a good presidential choice, never made it to the finish line.   They have become, as one cheeky newscaster described him the other day, veteran presidential candidates, serial contestants for the office of Nigeria’s president!

But Buhari never intends to give in.  He seems to believe that, like Abraham Lincoln, who ran for elections and failed many times before becoming president, he too could win if he keeps trying, if he keeps running.

In 2015, from all indications, Buhari intends, once more, to throw his hat in the ring.  Even though his new party, the newly registered mega party, the All Progressive Congress, APC, is yet to blow the whistle for aspirants, the General is not hiding his intention.  He told a visiting Arewa youth group at his Kaduna residence recently that he would be trying again for the presidential mansion, otherwise known and called Aso Rock.  He was reported in the newspapers to have said he felt a sacred duty to run for the presidency.

Should Buhari run in 2015? Of course, it is his inalienable right to contest elections into any office of his choice, as many times as he so wishes.  If he runs, will he win?  That’s a different kettle of fish altogether.  If he runs and fails a fourth time, what would be the consequences for him as a person and the future of his party?  By allegedly alluding to a ‘divine call’ to run (as reported in the newspapers), is he not beginning to be consumed by a Messianic complex?  I hope not.

I first met the respected General sometime in 2003, shortly after the presidential election, through the assistance of the late Alhaji Wada Nas, the controversial former minister of special duties in Abacha’s regime.  I had been pressurising Nas for an interview, for him to speak up on his tenure as Abacha’s minister; why he took on the opposition so frontally and became known as ‘minister for NADECO affairs’; Did he make so much money for all his efforts, given the widely acknowledged sleaze of that administration?

A genial old man, despite his unfavourable public persona,  Nas would not grant a formal interview, even as he shared his shock to the news of the Abacha loot. He said he didn’t know the man was stashing so much away, while keeping a straight face under his dark goggles.  Nas was facing harsh times financially, while the family he defended with his all, was living large on the largesse left by their patriarch.

When my pressures (for an exclusive interview) became too much, he told me: “Please, take this phone number. Call the person. Tell him you are from me.”  The person turned out to be Gen. Buhari’s PA.  Once I told him I was from Nas, he was warm and friendly,and went on to fix an interview appointment with Buhari.  It was a lucky break. I wanted a big interview with Nas but I got a bigger one with Buhari.  The interview held at the NICON Hilton (now Transcorp Hilton).  Buhari spoke to me for an hour.  He told me he was in politics to sanitise the process, when I asked him why a man, who sacked a civilian administration over alleged indiscipline and graft, would be comfortable in partisan politics? What was a good man doing in the midst of bad people?  Buhari said politics was the only legitimate way anyone could change the system.  “I have told you my reason for going into politics. I don’t know what else you want me to say,” he snapped, when I tried to box him into a corner. He spoke on other issues, including what he called the ‘fraud’ of Obasanjo’s victory.

I met Buhari again in his Kaduna residence twice in 2010 and 2011. I have the activist Professor of Virology, Tam David-West, to thank for one of the other two encounters.   He had been through two electoral defeats, albeit in circumstances, he insists were skewed by the ruling party. During the interview sessions, I asked him the reason he wouldn’t quit (the race), seeing he had been unlucky in the contests?  I asked him if he was not a religious fundamentalist, as alleged by his opponents?  Why would a man, who became Head of State at 46 or thereabout, be fighting to be president at 70? Wasn’t that an aberration in Africa, seeing Europe and America were switching over to youthful leaders?

Buhari took all the questions in his stride.  He betrayed no sign of irritation.  First, he denied being a religious fundamentalist or a Nigerian Ayatollah?  He asked for proofs from people, who were saying so.  All his life and career, he had been at home with people of all religions, including Christianity. Even some of his domestic aides were staunch Christians.  He would continue to run for elections so long as he had breath in his nostrils. He didn’t see himself as too old to run for elective office.

“The young people should come together, mobilise and defeat people like me you describe as old, instead of complaining,” he said. “That’s what Obama did. That’s what Cameron did. This is democracy. Mobilise and defeat the old.”

Buhari said Nigeria needed liberation from the crooks in power. And he would lead that change, with support from the ordinary people.   His greatest fear, he said, was the fractionalisation of the country, what he called the’ Somalia-sation’ of Nigeria as a result of the irresponsibility of its leaders.

Anytime you left Buhari, you had the impression of a man of vision, a man deeply pained by the backwardness of his country.  You also had the impression of a man with a cult following, who has been made to believe in his own invincibility and god-like qualities.  He’s nearest to a saint, in the eyes of his followers and adherents.  You can’t blame them. This is a nation in search of authentic heroes.  Buhari approximates what heroic leadership is about.

When he made his iconic broadcast December 31, 1983, exhorting Nigerians to love their country, he was our ultimate JFK.  He told Nigerians:  “This generation of Nigerians, and indeed, future generations, have no other country but Nigeria. So, we must stay here and salvage it together.”

It was the days of the ‘Andrews,’ checking out to the foreign land in search of greener pastures.  That exhortation became our own patriotic anthem, a rally call to Nigerians to love Nigeria, because Nigeria’s all we’ve got.

That was over two decades ago.  Not anymore. No one has courage to tell Nigerians not to check out any longer.  To stay home and do what?  With a ballooning unemployment index, including that of graduates, people are searching for any kind of job from wherever.

With all the good qualities enumerated above, will Buhari, therefore, make better showing than he did in the three previous elections if he runs in 2015? Sadly, no.  Yes, he is a good man, loved by many ordinary people.  However, in life and politics where perception is everything, he has not been able to completely shake off the alleged religious extremism toga or that of a Northern irredentist.  The forces that have so painted him seem to have done a good job of it. Many years after, he, unfortunately, doesn’t come across to many as a national leader. Just like the man who currently occupies the seat, President Jonathan. We have seen how a president, who came on a strong national appeal, has dramatically narrowed his administration to ethnic predilection.

If Buhari runs in 2015, he would be confirming what many of his adversaries and opponents had always suspected: That the whole merger proposition was all for the realisation of the ambition of Buhari and the ego of Bola Tinubu.  A party should be about ideas and ideals, not individuals.  A party is not a limited liability company owned by one or two persons. Luckily, I know a few respected members of APC, who won’t let that happen. For APC to remain the hope of the common man, that must never happen.

At 70 plus, it’s time for Buhari to forget his presidential dream, groom younger leaders to take over from him.  With all due respect, Buhari is not indispensable. No man is indispensable.  If Buhari runs and fails in 2015, he would have finally eroded the Buhari myth, which has kept many of his followers going over the years.   And that would be quite tragic.  A nation should not lose all its heroes, in the name of politics or whatever.  We need statesmen men who, when they speak,  everyone listens,  including the president and governors.  Partisanship robs the nation of such leaders.  Anyone who truly loves Buhari ought to advise him to take a bow, and go on a deserved rest (from running for elective office). He’s played his part, he’s given his best and the rest is left for history, which will record him as a truly great Nigerian. No one can ask for more!

YNaija

Who shall be our next President?

By Douglass Anele

Before we begin our inquiry proper, it must be observed that most Nigerians, including myself, do not know the presidential candidates personally on a one-on-one basis.

Rather what we know about them is based on information obtained through the print and electronic media.

Obviously that is a limitation, but we are not totally helpless as a result. Media practitioners over the years have improved their information-gathering and investigative capabilities using available technology, to the extent that one can have enough reliable information about prominent individuals (without necessarily meeting them face-to-face) which otherwise would not have been possible.

Again, the presidential candidates we are evaluating have served previously either as military dictators or as a civilian governor, in the case of Jonathan.

Therefore, we have firsthand knowledge of their performance on the basis of which we can objectively appraise their suitability regarding the office of President.

Having noted, and disposed of, the mild constraint to our analysis, we begin our appraisal of the three most prominent presidential hopefuls, and it is fitting that we consider Goodluck Jonathan first, because he is the incumbent President.

A lot has been said and written about Jonathan’s meteoric rise to the governorship of his home state, Bayelsa, and to the presidency of the country. While some prominent Nigerians, especially the “executive beggars” who rely on government’s patronage to survive, see this as part of a divine plan intended “to save our tottering country from collapse,” critics of Jonathan’s presidential ambition for 2011 argue that Mr. President is an unintended beneficiary of the warped and shambolic socio-economic and political environment in which Nigeria finds itself today.

Judging from his visage, body language and carriage, Mr. President appears to be a humble man really interested in providing purposeful leadership for the country. Some people have applauded what they consider the mature manner in which he handled pressures from different quarters for succession due to the incapacitation of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. But on the basis of the four criteria we enumerated earlier, is Jonathan’s desire to continue in office beyond May 29, 2011 justified? Does he deserve our support despite the hot air generated by the controversy surrounding zoning the presidency?

To answer those questions adequately, we must first deodorise some of the intellectual miasma generated by that very ambition. Goodluck Jonathan has the constitutional right to contest for any political position, if he so desires. That, definitely, should be clear to everyone. In this particular instance, however, the problem is the zoning formula of his party, the PDP.

I have always believed that the zoning principle is a means to an end, not an end in itself, as some people tend to argue. If the formula is applied intelligently and fairly in the wider context of national interest, it can lead to the emergence of an effective President and, over time, correct the inequalities in the balance of presidential power between the North and the South.

There are potential world-class leaders in all parts of the country. The major impediment is that the political environment is so polluted and the electoral process so distorted that it is easier for an elephant to pass through the eye of a needle than for any of such individuals to emerge as President.

As we said earlier, one of the hurdles before Jonathan stems from the controversy about zoning, particularly because in the ensuing debates parochial selfish and ethnic interests have outweighed more important issues such as merit and what we might call “the general good” or “national interest.”

Clearly, if we are serious about making the elusive “dividends of democracy” a reality merit, excellence, and continuity should not be compromised because of rigid dogmatic adherence to the principle of zoning. Therefore, if Jonathan is doing well now, it would be stupid to stop him because of zoning. After all zoning is made for Nigerians, not Nigerians for zoning.

Now, on the basis of the first criterion, Jonathan has not made his manifesto public so that Nigerians can dissect and evaluate it. When he does that, we will beam our searchlight on it. On the fourth criterion, that is, on the issue of physical and mental state of a presidential aspirant, Jonathan is on solid ground.

Apparently he is in good mental and physical health, notwithstanding the fact that appearances can be deceptive. It is with regard to questions concerning track record of performance and morality that one can legitimately entertain doubts about Jonathan’s suitability to continue as President beyond May 29 next year.

As governor of Bayelsa State, although for a short period, his performance was lukewarm. Now that he is President, his responsibilities and expectations from Nigerians are at least 36 times greater than what he dealt with when he was governor.

Consequently, Mr. President needs a big quantum leap in his performance level to convince Nigerians, particularly objective and serious–minded critics, that he is the primus inter pares, the person to beat, in next year’s presidential contest. Perhaps President Jonathan is trying his best, given his persona and the economic and political environment within which he is doing his job.

However, personally as a citizen of Nigeria who wishes his country well and as one of the millions of Nigerians that have been carrying the increasingly heavy hunchback placed on us by silly, corrupt and wicked rulers, both military and civilian, I am not satisfied with the performance of President Jonathan thus far.

He can easily be faulted on at least three counts: his failure to give bite and fresh impetus to the war against corruption which he inherited from his late predecessor, Umar Yar’ Adua; his inability to curb profligacy and wasteful spending by the federal government; and, finally, his inability to initiate concrete moves and policies that would enhance the quality of federalism practiced in the country.

Most Nigerians will concur that since Jonathan became President no fundamental improvement has been recorded in the fight against what Fela Anikulapo-Kuti called “authority stealing.”

Of course, those in charge of EFCC and the ICPC have been telling Nigerians the number of pending and successful prosecutions they have recorded since the two anti-corruption agencies were established, and the judicial obstacles they have been facing from wealthy and well-connected accused persons.

Yet, there is a general feeling nationwide that the President does not have the political will to go after former leaders and other “sacred cows” because of his own vulnerabilities and dependence on these same people to enhance his own political ambitions. If that is the case, and there are indications that it is, then the fight against corruption cannot succeed under his watch.

Babangida accepts that he is an evil genius, a clever dribbler like Maradona – except that, whereas the Argentine footballer dribbled opponents in the field of soccer Babangida dribbles people in the field of politics.

Now, is this the kind of President Nigeria needs at the moment? Certainly not, because we desperately need an honest, transparent, disciplined, intelligent and focused servant-leader who has compassion for the masses, a leader who will boldly confront the grotesque status quo and radically change it for the better. Our people are tired of morally over-contaminated leaders.

Therefore, on the basis of our second and third criteria, Babangida is thoroughly unfit to rule Nigeria again. Millions of Nigerians have good reasons to believe, as I do, that any party that is foolish enough to present him as its presidential flag bearer in next year’s elections will bite the dust.

Babangida just cannot rule Nigeria for the second time, due to the fact that his past record stinks, and there is nothing concrete to support the insinuation by   his sycophants that he has changed for good after “stepping aside” 17 years ago.

The “evil genius” appears to be in good health physically and mentally, thereby satisfying our fourth criterion. But being in good health is one thing, having the requisite leadership skills and will to serve the suffering masses of this country is a different thing altogether.

Unless Babangida forgot something in Aso Rock when he stepped aside in August 1993 which he has not told us yet, we believe that he has no moral right to aspire to go back there. He is taking Nigerians for a ride by his inordinate ambition to match Obasanjo’s record, but he must be ready to experience the rudest shock of his life if his name appears on the presidential ballot paper next year.

It is now the turn of Mohammadu Buhari, who lost two consecutive presidential elections in 2003 and 2007. While he was Minister of Petroleum Resources in the military government of Obasanjo, Buhari became prominent for the first time in connection with the alleged N2.8 billion missing from the Ministry.

Placed within the periscope of our four criteria, Buhari is a sellable presidential material. The manifestos he presented when he contested for President under the umbrella of All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP) contain the usual promises of politicians to the electorate.

What resonates with most Nigerians is Buhari’s pledge to jail anyone found guilty of corruption no matter how highly placed. This takes us to our second and third criteria, that is, track record of performance and morality.

Buhari’s brief tenure from December 31, 1983 to August 26, 1985 is probably the most disciplined period in Nigeria’s history. Ably assisted by the unsmiling disciplinarian, late Tunde Idiagbon, Buhari resolutely prosecuted the War Against Indiscipline (WAI) which sought to compel Nigerians to behave responsibly in both their personal and private lives.

The queuing culture, environmental sanitation, and punctuality were strictly enforced, whereas politicians found guilty of corruption and abuse of office were given long prison sentences. Although his regime went too far in curbing press freedom with Decree 4 and enforcement of death penalty against convicted drug traffickers, there is no doubt that Buhari was committed to national development through hard work and disciplined leadership.

His performance as chairman of the Petroleum Task Force, especially with regard to the South East geopolitical zone was not satisfactory – the zone, particularly the Igbo-speaking areas, had the lowest number of top appointments and projects from PTF.

All the same, despite his failures, and disregarding Tam David-West’s hyperbolic adulation of the former military head of state, Buhari is disciplined and morally upright enough to lead Nigeria at this point in time. We are particularly impressed by his modest lifestyle and tough stance against corruption. Health wise, he apparently has no serious problem; his body and mind can withstand the rigours of the presidency.

Among the presidential aspirants, we believe he has the best reputation.
Finally, we come to Atiku Abubakar. A retired Customs officer, Abubakar was Obasanjo’s deputy from 1999 to 2007, although the relationship between them deteriorated towards the end of their tenure.

Naturally, the former Vice President has promised to fix Nigeria’s problems if he becomes President, something he and Obasanjo failed to achieve for eight years, Recently, he claimed that he is the best among the presidential aspirants thus far. On the basis of promises and manifesto, there is little to choose between the aspirants discussed here, because all of them are telling the voters what they (the voters) want to hear.

At the height of his disagreement with Obasanjo, Atiku made disparaging remarks about his former boss and his party, the PDP.

Leadership without Conscience

SIMON KOLAWOLE

Incredible. I recently discovered that I spend most of my time thinking and talking about Nigeria. If I devote half of the time to making money, I would be richer than Bill Gates and Mike Adenuga combined! I don’t know why but I’ve noticed that, indeed, wherever two or three are gathered, Nigeria is usually the topic of discussion. Last Monday in London, what was supposed to be a quiet dinner with my friend and IT consultant, Aminu Hammanyero, at a Malaysian restaurant turned out to be another round of discussion on Nigeria. As we reflected, lamented and regretted, I pushed my pet thesis forward once again – that Nigeria is like this because we have always had the wrong people in power. The day the right people lead us, you would not believe it is the same Nigeria that has been universally derided and declared as hopeless.
Almost every ingredient needed to make Nigeria a truly great nation is available – a co-operative populace which we often label as “docile”; fantastic geographical balance which makes the North and the South so complementary in agricultural and industrial production; abundant human resource (go to advanced countries and see the way Nigerian professors, engineers, doctors and other professionals working over there are rated); abundant mineral resources; and a potential melting pot of multi-ethnic, multi-religious groups that, barring elite manipulation, are very capable of living together in peace and unity. The missing ingredient is, and has always been, leadership. We’re like sheep without a shepherd. We’ve always been saddled with unprepared and buccaneering leaders who spend most of their time pilfering and politicking without a care in the world for the progress of Nigeria.
As we finished attacking the Malaysian noodle dish with forks and knives, Aminu told me he had an appointment with former head of state, Major Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, and asked if I could accompany him. Why not? The last time I saw Buhari was in March 2001 when I interviewed him for TheWeek magazine, of which I was Editor then. I have nothing but respect for Buhari who, along with Major Gen. Tunde Idiagbon, provided a semblance of leadership for this country to the disgust of the predatory elite. To be sure, I was unhappy with the termination of our democracy in 1983 as well as their “dictatorship”. In fact, I was all too happy with the “democratic” posture of the man who overthrew them in 1985, Gen. Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), who swiftly abrogated the anti-press Decree 4 and threw open the detention cells of the Buhari government for all the whole world to see.
I will not tell lies or pretend here – I was relieved on hearing martial music on August 27, 1985 and the coup speech: “I, Brigadier Joshua Nimyel Dogonyaro, of the Nigerian Army, hereby make the following declarations of behalf of the Nigerian Armed Forces…” However, looking back today, I have nothing but anger and regrets. The first real chance to transform this country was truncated by IBB. He ended up committing every crime he accused Buhari of, and did even more. No government has undermined human rights more than IBB’s. All the politicians who were jailed with their loot confiscated by Buhari were released, given a pat on the back and re-integrated into the ruling class by IBB who paraded himself as a democrat. Most painfully, nobody has been able to successfully accuse Buhari and Idiagbon of corruption up till today. When Colonels Abubakar Umar, Lawan Gwadabe and Abdulmumini Aminu went to arrest Buhari in Daura, his hometown, on the eve of the IBB coup, they were shocked to discover the modesty of Buhari’s country home.
Even though I only began to fully appreciate Buhari when IBB started to show us his true colour, it was a Buhari interview I read in TheNews magazine in 1994 that finally melted my heart. Asked about the perceived highhandedness of his government, Buhari replied: “I agree we made a lot of mistakes, but they were genuine mistakes… we were in a hurry to change Nigeria.” I shook my head in pity. The motive was the progress of Nigeria, not personal benefits. Nobody is going to bring about fundamental change in Nigeria without taking tough actions which we would consider as “highhandedness”. Jerry Rawlings was notoriously highhanded in Ghana, but his country is today a reference point in transformation. The political elite which held Ghana captive had to make way for the country to make progress. Ghana is telling a different story today. Nigerian elites are now rushing to Ghana for “sanity”.
Motive matters. Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo was also highhanded, only that it was not for the sake of Nigeria. His shenanigans in Anambra, Oyo, Rivers and the National Assembly were not for the progress of Nigeria but for self-aggrandisement. No matter what we count as Obasanjo’s achievements, he lacked the moral launch pad to transform Nigeria. That is why corruption boomed astronomically under him. His government should rank as the most corrupt in our history (IBB is a saint, compared to Obasanjo). Our refineries never worked because of the fuel-importing ring Obasanjo created to lubricate his political machinery. Even the power projects were riddled with scandal and so we still don’t have electricity. For eight years, Obasanjo failed to tackle our basic needs. Without a moral foundation, no attempts at economic or political reform will turn Nigeria into a great nation. Free and fair elections cannot be guaranteed.
As I was saying, we caught up with Buhari and chatted with him for nearly an hour. We discussed Nigeria and nothing else. The General is obviously very bitter with events in the country, particularly “Ido-Osi” (the new name for vote inflation) and the attitude of the ruling government to the development of the country. He said he was not surprised US President Barack Obama was going to Ghana and not Nigeria. “When President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was busy reversing policies and cancelling international agreements, he failed to realise the outside world was watching him. I was also not surprised Nigeria was left out of the G-20 summit. When I became head of state in 1983, I announced that we would honour every international obligation, even though some were entered into wrongfully by the previous government. But an agreement is an agreement,” he said.
He spoke on the Obasanjo years with disappointment and disbelief. “I worked with Obasanjo from 1975 to 1979 as petroleum minister. I had never worked with such a hardworking and honest person. He had the interest of Nigeria at heart. You just couldn’t cope with his pace. He could be on his feet for 24 hours. But the Obasanjo that ruled Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 was completely different from the one I knew. He spent the first term travelling all over the world. He spent the second term thinking of how to rule Nigeria forever,” Buhari said. He narrated his first argument with the former president at a Council of State meeting in 2001. The issue was the refineries. Hear him: “I said when I was the petroleum minister under him, we used to hold tenders for turn around maintenance (TAM) of refineries. There was no favouritism. There were no fuel queues because we made adequate preparations for the maintenance works by getting bids for fuel import contracts to cover the gap.”
He continued: “I also said, Mr. President, when you came into power in 1999, you said our refineries were not working because somebody was awarding fuel import contracts to his family members. Two years on, Mr. President, who is getting the fuel import contracts? Are the refineries working now? He interjected and tried to stop me. The then Vice-President Atiku Abubakar came to my rescue. He told the president that as the chairman of the economic team, he had not heard such a submission from anybody before then. He asked the president to allow me conclude my contribution. But my advice wasn’t accepted in any case.”
Buhari, now a democracy convert (he contested for presidency on the ticket of ANPP in 2003 and 2007), lamented the state of the nation. “I recently got hold of the figures of our income from 1999 till now, it’s incredible. How come we don’t have basic infrastructure? Why are our roads still like this? How come our education system has collapsed so dramatically that only those with money can send their children to good schools? Why are our hospitals in such a terrible state that only those who have money can get good treatment, usually abroad? Why should Nigeria be like this with all the money that we have? After asking myself all these questions, I came to the conclusion that our leaders do not have conscience. That is the crux of the matter. If our leaders had conscience, Nigeria would not be in the state it is now.”
To buttress his leadership argument, he said: “I was in Calcutta, India, in 1972 for my staff training. I remember that the same way refuse collectors come around in the morning was the way undertakers were going round every morning collecting dead bodies for burial. India was facing harsh economic and food crises then. Yet, with purposeful leadership, India had become a different country in a matter of 10 years. When I became head of state in 1983, I was amazed to discover that Nigeria was importing rice from India. That is what purposeful leadership can do. India is bigger and more complex than Nigeria by far. They have more ethnic groups, more religions, more political parties, by far a bigger population, but all these have not impeded their progress. They, along with China, are the emerging global economic powerhouses.”
Dear readers, I hereby stand my by argument – that the day the right leaders emerge, there would be no stopping Nigeria from attaining greatness. But how would they emerge with the way things are going, with the way the country is structured, with fake intellectuals and heartless looters calling the shots in almost every sphere of our lives? I don’t have an answer to that, honestly. But if there is bad, there is good too. If there is darkness, then there is light. If there are bad leaders, there will be good leaders one day. I don’t for one second think that predators will rule Nigeria forever…

Muhammadu Buhari... between imagination and reality By Kingsley Osadolor PROBABLY the best description of the book I am about to review is to say that, Who Really Is General Muhammadu Buhari? is an extensive, robust, engaging and illuminating rejoinder to the series of views and opinions which over the past 25 years have created in the public imagination a persona that is at variance with the real Gen. Buhari. The author himself is a prominent, articulate and irrepressible player in the public space. For several decades, he has taken on a broad range of issues and persons, never tiring, never despairing, until he believes that the last iota of the particular or ancillary matter has been exhausted. He is not only a renowned scholar as a Professor of Virology, he is also a highly regarded public intellectual. It is certainly not impolite to say that Professor Tam David-West is a controversial figure. Indeed, that would be a trite remark to make, for as he acknowledges in his new book, "I never, ever run away from a fight, especially for a good cause." (p. 117). And he has served notice already to those who will pick issues with him on matters arising from the book. "I naturally expect that the wounded will snort and even roar and, of course, come around charging. No problem at all. I'm ready and prepared to take them on in 'open space'." (p.8).  advertisement I know Prof. David-West well enough. Fifteen years ago while I was Editor of The Guardian on Sunday, he was one of my regular contributors. If he felt constrained by the restrictive editorial space, or that the subject matter could not be conveniently accommodated in the op-ed section, he never hesitated to take out a paid advertisement to fully ventilate his views. Two years ago, as he discloses in the book, he deposited the certificate of occupancy of his developed property with the Editor of the Daily Sun, as a guarantee that he would pay for the advertisement of an extended article he wanted published. That compilation was General Buhari: In Defence And Categorical Positives. The Sun newspaper graciously serialised it for him over a three-day period in April 2007. And, of course, he got his C of O back. That publication has now morphed into the current effort, Who Really Is General Muhammadu Buhari? Nor was the serialised article in The Sun his first outing in praise and defence of Gen. Buhari. He had granted interviews and published pieces on Buhari, Nigeria's seventh Head of State, who came into office on the heels of the military coup that sacked the Second Republic on December 31, 1983, but was himself overthrown in a palace coup led by his erstwhile Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who assumed office on August 27, 1985. On January 18, 1984, Gen. Buhari swore in Prof. David-West as Nigeria's Oil Minister, combining the cabinet post with being the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Gen. Babangida retained him as Minister of Mines and Power, until the author was removed unceremoniously in 1986. In October 1989 at the NEWSWATCH summit, Prof. David-West granted an interview in which he contrasted the styles of Buhari and Babangida. He was arrested and detained without trial. Subsequently, he was arraigned on trumped-up charges that, while he was Oil Minister, he drank tea and received a lady's wristwatch as bribes, to compromise the nation's economic interest. The tribunal jailed him for life, but was freed on appeal, after he had spent nine months behind bars at the inhospitable Bama prisons in the country's north-eastern fringe. The author refers to these incidents in the book, extolling Buhari, while firing broadsides at Babangida and Prof. Jubril Aminu, a task he achieves briskly and then returns to his polemic pre-occupation with Buhari's defence. Who Really Is General Muhammadu Buhari? was unsolicited by the subject of the book. The author tells us that Gen. Buhari was kept completely in the dark about the project, making no contribution whatsoever. But the author leaves no one in doubt that the immediate instigation for the writing project derived from the barrage of attacks on Buhari on the eve on the 2007 presidential elections in which Buhari was the candidate of the All Nigeria People's Party (ANPP), running against the incumbent People's Democratic Party (PDP), and Action Congress (AC). By the author's reckoning, in January 2007 alone, there were, on Buhari, over 14 media articles and three editorials, which were decidedly negative with hardly any redeeming features. "I've never come across such unrestrained hate, such denouncement, such repulsive verbiage against a fellow human being, a compatriot, all because these Buhari haters want to hoist themselves as super-patriots of Nigeria." (p.50). He notes, for instance, the title and text of the press conference addressed by Prof Wole Soyinka, "The Nigerian Nation Against Buhari". According to David-West, "It should have been more appropriate to say, 'Wole Soyinka Against Buhari', because Wole is no spokesman for Nigeria at all." (p.60). But what qualifies David-West to be Buhari's defender, considering the differences between them, which the writer itemises? The author is an Ijaw from the South, the subject a Fulani from the North; the author an Anglican from Rivers State, the subject a Muslim from Katsina State. Former Head of State Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar points out in the Foreword that, in fact, with these differences, "the credibility of his testimony will, even for doubting Thomases, appear to be irreproachable and with cast-iron guarantees." But there is indeed more to the sterling qualifications of the author to handle his self-assigned task. He describes himself as "a dyed-in-the-wool pro Buhari" (p.53), adding that, "I write as an insider, not as an outsider. I write from first hand, not from second hand. I write with copious authentic documents, not speculations or histrionics spiced with prejudice and bias." (p.114). A meticulous record-keeper, Prof. David-West should alternatively have been a librarian or an archivist. He is reputed with a prodigious talent for research and analysis. He argues that there are at least two reasons why Buhari is one of Nigeria's most misunderstood and maligned leaders of our time. "One, laziness to study the 'Buhari phenomenon'. The real Buhari. This laziness often expresses itself in 'lazy scepticism', rather than 'rational scepticism' (Russell) or 'virtuous scepticism' (Dudley).... The second reason which makes for the Buhari-phobia is implacable negative mindset suffused in negative stereotypes" (pp.42-43). Clearly, the persuasion for the author in writing the book derives from his personal encounter with the subject, who left a remarkable impression on him when he served as Oil Minister. Buhari's impact must have been quite telling, for David-West was no first-timer in public office when he assumed headship of Nigeria's oil industry. From 1975-1978, he was Commissioner for Education in old Rivers State; he also served on the Constitution Drafting Committee that prepared the 1979 draft Constitution. And, in any event, he is a man of great intellect and exposure. But Buhari won him over with the essential attributes of integrity, probity, discipline, reliability, thoroughness, patriotism, stoicism and self-effacement. (p.26). Besides, the author acknowledges that Buhari, a former Military Governor of the old North-Eastern State and erstwhile Chairman of NNPC and Oil Minister (or Federal Commissioner as they were called in the 1970s), was his first tutor in matters of hydrocarbon. Prof. David-West's defence of Gen. Buhari is fiery, hard-hitting, argumentative, and occasionally sarcastic. The reader has much to make him laugh, as David-West crows each time he believes he has delivered a knockout punch to the opposing view. The reader gets the impression also that the author is holding court, and he is the sole judge. So that when he clears Buhari of a long-standing allegation, he pronounces the verdict with a gavel. This is evident, for instance, in the matter of the Oputa Panel on Human Rights abuses over which Buhari declined to honour the Panel's invitation to testify. After blaming the Obasanjo government for not fast-tracking the appropriate legal instrument that would have empowered the Panel to issue subpoenas, and recalling President Bill Clinton's retort not to help the Senate Committee define the meaning of sexual intercourse in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, David-West concludes: "Verdict: Buhari/Oputa Panel: Not guilty. Discharged and acquitted simpliciter." (p.156). To identify the real Buhari, the author has first to rescue him from the clutches of the band of Buhari-choppers, Buhari-phobics and Buhari-haters, as he describes them. In his view, Buhari's image has been maligned by some 16 'sins'. Among the 16 'sins' are human rights abuse, Islamic fundamentalism, Decree 4 and repression of the media, Decree 2: State Security (Detention of Persons ) of 1984, the 53 suitcases saga, suspension of the Ooni of Ife and the Emir of Kano, the N2.8 billion 'missing' oil money (which was probed and dismissed earlier by Justice Ayo Irikefe), the siege laid to Chief Awolowo's house, lack of democratic credentials, the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), among others. In coming to Buhari's defence, the author's duty is to perform the absolution. To achieve this, the book has five chapters, excluding the preliminary pages as well as the epilogue and annexure. The work is dedicated "To all who are sincerely and obdurately committed to lofty ethical principles and values. Persons of rock solid principles." (p. vii). The Foreword is written by former Head of State Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who praises Buhari as an extraordinary Nigerian in or out of uniform, and "a leader of rare qualities and even rarer attributes". (p.ix). The book has a Prologue, which is like an extended abstract, although it does not suffice for a reader who wants the meat of the author's contestation of Buhari's vilification. In Chapter One, the author recounts his first meeting with Gen. Buhari, which was at his swearing-in as a Minister. He describes the process of his unsolicited nomination and the dispatch with which letters were treated as unmistakable signs that it was a serious-minded government. In Chapter Two, he explores Buhari's biography, noting his huge appetite for reading and recalling that it was not unusual for the former Head of State to return to him his memos as Oil Minister with extensive comments only a few hours after receiving such memos. As a student, Buhari had been outstanding both in academics and in sports; but his schoolmates already noticed that he was strong-willed, principled and that he always stood his ground. Considering his military ancestry, it seemed to have been no accident that young Buhari enlisted in the army, where he had a glittering career, including being a Civil War veteran, GOC, and later military Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. Chapters Three and Four are easily the heart of the book where the author enumerates and responds pointedly to Buhari's critics and their catalogue of allegations. In Chapter Three, titled, 'Buhari's Critics', the heat which the author generates is as intense as that of the anti-Buhari squadron whom he wants to shoot down. The chapter easily passes as a scathing review of Prof. Wole Soyinka's memoirs, You Must Set Forth At Dawn, as well as of the text of his press conference address referred to earlier in this review. Prof. David-West takes on Prof. Soyinka, whom he calls his friend, for the latter challenging Buhari's competence to seek election on account of his unfavourable antecedents, and for the vitriol of his language. The author is livid at Prof. Soyinka, pointing out his inconsistencies in ignoring the unfavourable antecedents of another presidential candidate whom David-West accuses Soyinka of endorsing only as an after-thought. In a sense, the chapter conveys the distinct impression of a shouting match. Thus, where Soyinka referred to Buhari as "Somebody like Buhari", David-West leaps in with his acerbic response: " How rude. How intemperate....Honestly, I'm so upset with this indecency in language especially from someone I have respected. What does Wole Soyinka really think he is to warrant such cheekiness from him against a fellow compatriot"? (p.57). Then he adds, "the cavalier manner with which General Buhari is being dismissed as a presidential candidate or aspirant falls short of decency, intellectual or moral, especially from the heights it emanates." (p.54). Chapter Four is the longest in the book, running from page 69 to page 224, that is, 156 pages in all. It is in this chapter that the author addresses the Buhari 'sins'. It seems to me that the chapter could have conveniently been broken into three separate chapters. The first could have tackled some of the 'sins' such as those on human rights abuses, media repression, Decree 2, and the trial of politicians of the Second Republic under Decree 3. Another suggested chapter could have addressed 'sins' emanating from Buhari's economic management, including his tenure as Oil Minister in the 1970s and the N2.8 billion saga, while using the section to highlight Buhari's successes in economic management which a dispassionate reading will show were quite impressive. Another chapter could have been devoted to Buhari and Idiagbon as the Quintessential Pair. In rebutting the allegations of human rights abuses, the author draws attention to the fact that the draconian decrees, some of which he personally had reservations about, were drafted by civilian lawyers. This in my view bestirs the question of whether the principal did not get what he requested of the agent. David-West also uses antecedent and subsequent history as a major plank for the revisionism of the alleged human rights abuses of the Buhari administration. Thus, he argues that Obasanjo as a military leader established a gulag at Ita-Oko, and even as a civilian President the human rights record of his government was appalling. Ditto other military governments after Buhari. But he omits to recognise that none of those governments, for example, Obasanjo, Babangida, and Abacha have been spared of blistering criticisms in the public arena. Understandably, because of his long-standing relationship with the media, as a preamble to addressing the Decree 4 issue, the author establishes his credentials cogently as an adjunct member and supporter of a free but responsible press. He claims that The Guardian journalists who published prematurely the ambassadorial list should have exercised better discretion, because the story indicated security lapses in government and simultaneously embarrassed the regime. Did that warrant a jail sentence? Journalists who read the book will wonder whether the author forgot that in the early days of the regime, even when no one had irritated it, Gen. Buhari granted an interview to the National Concord newspaper in which he declared deadpan that he was going to "tamper" with the press. As with the revisionism of human rights abuses, the author claims that whereas only one Decree 4 was promulgated under Buhari, between 1984 and 1994, there were 11 anti-Press Decrees. Journalists would definitely retort: who knows what might have been if Buhari's regime had lasted more than 20 months? On the other hand, David-West blasts those who accuse Buhari of Islamic fundamentalism, because he had urged Muslims to vote for a Muslim leader. The author draws a parallel with the exhortation by a former President of the Christian Association of Nigeria that Christians should vote for a Christian leader. Besides, he charges that some of those who are most vociferous in maligning Buhari with fundamentalism are either atheists or agnostics, some of whom wine and dine with tyrants. He notes further that as Governor of Katsina State, President Yar'Adua introduced Sharia law. Nevertheless, the book recounts a number of actions taken by Buhari, which clearly did not portray him as a fundamentalist. He bulldozed mosques that were constructed illegally, arrested and detained a number of Islamic preachers for their violent sermons, raised the fares for the annual hajj, and throughout his command duties in the military, there were no complaints that he discriminated against anyone on the basis of religion. In Chapter Five, there is an elaboration on Gen. Buhari's contributions to democracy, an issue that was considered in the preceding chapter, where the author had queried which military Head of State ever had democratic credentials. It is contradictory he argues, but points out, citing Kofi Busia's Africa In Search Of Democracy, that what was crucial was the style of the particular leader, that is, "whether the military head of state is an orthodox dictator (despot) or respects the 'moral language' of democracy". (p.150). David-West contends that at the Federal Executive Council meetings, Gen. Buhari did not impose his views, but rather was democratic in pandering to the wishes of the majority. I will quote one encounter in detail. "I cannot forget the day I lost, as Minister of Petroleum and Energy, a memo on Petroleum Tax. Both the Head of State, General Buhari, and his alter ego, General Idiagbon, supported me to the hilt. In fact, General Buhari was so sure of my pulling my memo through the Exco that he had to instruct the Acting Attorney-General, Chief Howard F. David-West (my first cousin), on the section of the NNPC Act that would be amended after the Exco meeting. Howard, in fact, walked across to me to further ascertain the relevant sections to be amended. I confirmed. However, after I presented the memo, a heated debate ensued. In the end, after the democratic voting by ministers, I lost, and this was after both Buhari and Idiagbon had spoken very spiritedly in my support. General Buhari's rounding-up remark: 'One cannot predict this council. I thought the memo would sail through easily.'" (p.226). But the author falls into a grievous error by charging that were the above-narrated transaction to have been under Alhaji Shehu Shagari's Second Republic or Chief Olusegun Obasanjo's Fourth Republic, they would have lobbied and bribed lawmakers for the passage of bills. The comparable structure and arm of government is the Federal Executive Council, and there is no evidence that either Shagari or Obasanjo had to bribe or lobby their ministers. Even though Buhari's Exco was small, the process of lawmaking under the military is totally different from a civilian democratic setting. Or were there legislators so-called under the Buhari regime? It is also debatable whether as the author claims that, by terminating the Second Republic "parody of democracy" Buhari also contributed to democracy. Indeed, the evidence that the author provides of Buhari's contribution to democracy relates to, not his superintendence over a democratically elected government as such, but in seeking under the current dispensation, to test the legal underpinnings of democracy. This David-West describes as Buhari's "obstinate, inflexible and very strong-willed resolve to run the entire legal gamut in his principled quest for justice, even in the face of the manifest or palpable electoral malpractices and fraud which were visited on us with perverse swank". (p.228). I agree. The book closes with an Epilogue, which is an anthology of some of the public reactions to the Supreme Court verdict on December 12, 2008, by which the apex court by a split decision of 4:3 held that President Umaru Yar'Adua won the disputed presidential elections of April 21, 2007, and thus ended the legal battle spearheaded by Buhari and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Using academic metaphors, David-West weighs in on the commentaries on the Supreme Court verdict. On the non-serialisation of ballot papers, the author argues that, "It is like a compulsory subject requirement for a degree in academic culture. A student can score 'distinction' in all the other subjects required for the degree. Once he failed in the compulsory subject, all the impressive scores of 'distinction' are automatically worthless for the award of the degree...President Yar'Adua is very familiar with this, being an academic." (p.256). On President Yar'Adua's confession to electoral irregularities, the author reminds his readers of the harsh penalty meted to a student who cheats in an examination. "In other words," David-West writes, "President Yar'Adua after confessing (to) cheating or electoral malpractice ('flaw' in his own words) in the electoral processes that declared him 'President' had no business continuing to be beneficiary of the very fraudulent or flawed election..."(p.257). There is no question that, in exploring who the real Buhari is, David-West calls attention to the achievements of Buhari while he was Head of State for 20 months. The record is humbling and thought-provoking. It is a clear message for us as a nation to demand good governance and a wake-up call for public office holders. The media, civil society groups, and policy makers will find the book particularly revealing. Under Buhari, Nigeria was exporting refined petroleum products. Petroleum products were never imported, unlike the bazaar and attendant hardship we experience today. Buhari shunned the IMF; our refineries were brimful of bitumen. His government also stamped out illegal bunkering for which David-West received several death threats and an encounter he relates in the book. An acquaintance even offered him a bulletproof vest which he accepted but never used. He asks: "How many people would remember that, under General Buhari, our refineries never had problems with Turn-Around -Maintenance?" (p.13). So, when did Buhari commit the original 'sin'? This is a matter for future enquiry, as the author provides no clue as to the genesis of the allegations. It is certainly no longer axiomatic that good wine need no bush. Those who occupy public office owe themselves and the governed a duty to correct erroneous impressions about themselves and their policies. I concede that sometimes a target of persistent disinformation may simply throw his hands up in despair. But the weight of evidence provided by David-West indicates that the subject may have, indeed, been unfair to himself in paying scant attention to image and reputation management. But then, Who Really Is General Muhammadu Buhari? Gen. Buhari hasn't changed. Prof. Tam David-West has provided us with new lenses with which to view a misunderstood patriot. Osadolor (Esq) is the legal adviser of The Guardian

Discipline and Accountability under Democratic Leadership By Muhammadu Buhari

Muhammadu Buhari served in the Nigerian Armed Forces in the 1980s. In 1983, he led a military coup d'etat that overthrew the elected Government of Shehu Shagari, his fellow Fulani aristocrat. As the military "Head of State," Buhari imposed a stiff military regime of "discipline" which required everyone to be obedient to state commands. In 1985, he was overthrown in another military coup led by Ibrahim Babangida. This address is part of Buhari's campaign for a term of the presidency of Nigeria that begins in 2003. 

---

  
  
Text of an address by General Muhammadu Buhari at the Student Democratic Forum Lecture at Abdullahi Smith Lecture Theatre, Ahmadu Bello University Main Campus Samaru, Zaria Saturday, July 20^th, 2002 at 10.00 a.m.

1.It is with great pleasure that I stand before you today. I would first of all, like to thank members of the Students’ Democratic Forum for inviting me to talk on Discipline and Accountability under Democratic Leadership. 
 
 

2.The importance of this topic for present day Nigeria cannot be overemphasized. Indeed so important are the two, i.e. democracy and accountability, meaning, unless they are there, democracy will not be able to deliver any of its expected dividends.The topic coheres well enough and most appropriate for us today. Accountability, so to speak, is a form of self-discipline, and, while it is possible to be accountable without democracy, it is impossible to be democratic without accountability. I therefore understand from the topic of my talk that you want me to tell you what makes democracy tick.
 
 

3.When we talk of democratic leadership we usually mean representative, responsible government i.e. a government freely elected by the people and is truly responsible to them. Let’s agree at the outset that, whatever the ideology in question, we recognize democracy as perhaps the best, form of government today, provided we agree on a definition of what democracy truly means.As Reinhold Niebuhr rightly observed “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”
 
 

4.The democratic system itself is in reality a culture, i.e. a culture of elections, rights, obligations, checks and balances. Like all cultures, it requires believing in, nurturing, tending and participation. 
 
 

The most prominent aspect of democratic governance is the development of a democratic civil culture that sets out, and itself obeys, the rules and practices that characterizes the ability of a people to govern themselves according to constitutional provisions. In short subjecting everything to the rule of law.
 
 

In theory, which we must translate into practice, the democracy that Nigeria needs is one that is founded on periodic, free and fair elections; and in it, the majority rules while the rights of the minority, are respected and guaranteed by law. It should be anchored on the independence of the judiciary, freedom of faith, expression, association and aspirations.All these must be based on the principle of the rule of law, due process and the equality of all persons before the law.
 
 

5.The functioning of this democracy must be based on the concept of the demarcation of powers, with adequate checks and balances to guard against the arbitrary exercise of power and ensure accountability in governance. And here we might as well paraphrase Reinhold; and, for our purposes, say: 
 
 

“Man’s capacity for accountability makes democracy possible but man’s inclination to corruption and lack of accountability makes democracy unnecessary.” Essentially, therefore, democracy is about making the leadership accountable to the people and the people themselves disciplined.
 
 

6.It is an understatement to say that there has been a clear lack of accountability in the conduct of public affairs in this country. The public service, as the executive agency of the government of the day at various levels thus, federal, state and local levels, wields enormous powers, where the government of the day allows it to function within the normal guidelines and regulations laid. 
 
 

Nowadays, this power is wielded with much arbitrariness and abuse of procedure. In the democracy Nigerians are asked to practice and which we are being told is the one being practiced; the public is entitled to know what policies, activities and development projects are approved by the appropriate agency. In addition, the people must have access to the estimates made for public expenditure in order to ensure that expenditures of public funds are limited by approved estimates.
 
 

Even when all these transactions have been carried out lawfully, the public is entitled to demand that they must be properly kept in the appropriate books of accounts and independently audited and accounted for.
 
 

Weather this is being done in the very democracy we are practising today; is a big question that I will like to leave the answer to the public.
 
 

7.As I observed on a different occasion, the last time the annual financial account of the Federal Government were prepared and submitted for audit was, I understand, in 1980.And at the 1984 conference of Auditors-General of the Federation and State’s Directors of Audit, it was revealed, to the astonishment of no one, that eleven states last submitted their annual accounts for audit in 1967! During the tenure of our government 1984-85 we instituted a programme to update audited accounts and publish them. But, as usual, this was soon forgotten away by the Nigerian penchant for lack of implementation and follow-up.
 
 

There must to be consistency in policy planning and clarity in stating policy objectives so that we always know what we are doing and why. This can only be done if we have a purposeful public service in place. No doubt, recent events have badly dented the service, but this situation is not irreparable or irreversible. 
 
 

For our democracy to succeed and the regime of accountability to prevail, Nigeria’s public service must rediscover itself. It must find its way back to the pre-1966 Golden Age.
 
 

8.Today the lack of accountability has, for instance, helped to create wide distortions of income distribution throughout the society. 
 
 

And because little is being done to the culprits, this has also fueled the scramble for appointments, especially to executive positions, which, because of the same lack of accountability, enable their occupants to do as they please. 
 
 

The mad rushes for the presidency, and the unending clamour for its rotation among the zones, derive directly from the rich pickings which lack of accountability confers on it. This is a very serious matter, which ought to be remedied. 
 
 

But more serious are going to be some of the longer-term after-effects on the younger generation that did not know that at one time a system of accountability existed in this land. But simply knowing this without doing anything about it is unlikely to help our nation. The prosperity that embezzlement and other fraudulent practices conferred, especially in the recent past, is a direct result of this failure to investigate and punish. 
 
 

In general, corruption and every aspect of lack of accountability benefits from the fact that ours is a nation that doesn’t ask the right questions. But in some instances, there is no need to ask questions because the evidence talks louder than words.

However, whether questions are asked or not, we all know that in no distance past many public officers controlling votes, awarding contracts or belonging to task forces enforcing any kind of law became lords unto themselves. 
 
 

They did as they pleased, generated revenues for themselves and their families, and they competed with each other in erecting mansions and indulging in conspicuous consumption – with money largely derived from public sources.And many still do. 
 
 

9.Moral absolutes that used to be the pegs on which our society’s values were anchored had, by design and default, been abandoned, so totally that one could, with justification, wonder whether it would ever prove possible to revive public morality. Neither the hold of religious precepts, nor the sanction of public shame, nor yet the eyes of society, or the fear of the penalties nor even secular civic pride or the plain responsibility of being just human would make people behave according to the rules and follow laid down procedure. 

The fact remains that we will not overcome these manifold problems by mere act of democratizing. Of course democracy is not an end in itself. 
 
 

It is only a means to an end, which for us is good, representative, responsible governance and its other dividends. Certainly not the type of dividends our ears are daily fed with today.
 
 

And if Nigerians want to fully realize the gains of democracy which I believe they do; people must be ready to play according to the rules, and pay the price required. They must be their own watchdogs and guard against the many forces that look capable of subverting the system. 
 
 

“That people naturally prefer freedom to oppression can indeed be taken for granted,” said Chester Finn, Jr., “but that is not the same as saying that democratic political systems can be expected to create and maintain themselves over time. On the contrary, the idea of democracy is durable, but its practice is precarious.”
 
 

10.In Nigeria it is not just voter-apathy that threatens democracy and responsible governance. It is what, for want of a better term, I call system-apathy. At one extreme end people are impatient – they don’t have sufficient patience to play according to the rules of the system; while at the other extreme end, they are too patient (docile is the word) to accept any determined corrupt money-bag to produce election result he wants in any constituency in the country today. 

So much so that this docility has turned corrupt public officers into statesmen. We should all be worried enough to want to do something about it.
 
 

The first antidote against such subversion is to ensure that elections are free and fair, and representative of the popular will. But that is not enough to deliver the goods. The leader elected must have what it takes and have vision for the polity and be a person of integrity. The leader must be able to communicate and have a proper sense of history; but, above all, he must be ready to lead by example. 
 
 

In addition, what our country needs in its leader now is astuteness in crisis leadership and courageous enough to confront corruption head on.
 
 

11.The second antidote is to have effective checks and balances to curb arbitrariness and any creeping despotism in the leader. These checks, which ought to emanate from several different sources, must be patriotic and strong enough to deter the most determined dictator. Firstly, there must be a return to the party supremacy and discipline of the first and second republics. The leader elected must be loyal to his party and its programmes; and be respectful to its by-laws. This is very important since the electorate normally elects on the strength of party programmes; and without this type of respect for party supremacy the leader becomes an unguided missile let loose among the people.
 
 

Secondly, the legislature and the judiciary must provide the constitutional checks and balances required. When this is missing, especially in the instances where the people’s elected representatives pursue goals other than the public good, the leader simply becomes a constitutionally elected dictator, and the people’s watchdogs become cheerleaders as the republic is raped.
 
 

Thirdly, the media must provide the most immediate, open check on the excesses of the leadership. As watchdogs of the people, the media, relying on the peoples right to know, report on the successes or failures of leadership. The media must continue to inform and educate and be an alert watchdog over government and society’s powerful institutions. 
 
 

The media of this millenium must be able to operate beyond religio-ethnic and regional lines. They must cross over to addressing issues rather than sentiments. The press must be agents of unity and understanding. Sensational captions and stories may obviously attract buyers of newspapers which is good business, but the consequence of that may produce environment with no one to purchase subsequent editions. In plain language our media must be patriotic enough to reduce areas that are likely to produce crises in society.
 
 

Benjamin Franklin once said, given the choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government; he would, without hesitation, choose the latter.I would too, but they must be newspapers that told the truth and tried to reduce crises in the polity. 
 
 

Holding aloft a standard of independence, fairness, and objectivity and drawing on the strength of its tremendous resources, the media is best suited to expose the truth behind all claims made by leadership and hold officials accountable for their actions or inactions. Journalists must wield this power of the media, which has often been seen as even greater than that of the other two Estates, with a great sense of responsibility by journalists.
 
 

12.With all these checks, counter checks and balances in place, it remains for the leadership to give the right direction so that democracy may sprout, grow and sustain itself.And here I know of no better or more functional definition of democracy than the one given by Seymour Lipset. I quote: 
 
 

“ Democracy in a complete society may be defined as political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials, and a social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders of political office.” End of quote. And I would like to assure that democracy can’t do more than what this definition made for you. 

It only gives you the power to change leaders when they fail. It cannot guarantee a successful government. The success is largely determined by the quality of the leadership. 
 
 

A leader, according to one of the American presidents, “is one who has the emotional, mental and physical strength to withstand the pressures and tensions, and then, at the critical moment, to make a choice and to act decisively; the men who fail are those who are so overcome by doubts that they either crack under the strain or flee.” But here at home, even if one is overcome by doubts and plagued by failure, all he wants to do istazarce.
 
 

13.Tazarce and other subversive maneuvers can hardly take us anywhere; it will only take us backward.And unless we change our way - of sit-tight leadership and chequebook politics – we shall never know democracy in this land. Within the last three years, for instance, we cannot in all honesty, be said to have tried our best to lay down the foundations of a stable democratic polity or the ground for good governance. What we observe in this country is not the responsible exercise of power, but an intoxication of the leadership by it. 
 
 

Democracy gave us a chance, but we fail to grab it to take corrective action.Instead we went on the path of punitive action in full blast.No wonder we lost the way; and this, in turn, led us to the path of self - deceit.

We were promised better days ahead; yet we only saw days that are worse. We were promised light at the end of the tunnel, but the tunnel only got longer – and we are still enveloped by its darkness.We were promised an end to corruption, but we only witnessed its ascendance and triumphant coming of age. We were made to listen to endless lamentations on the deterioration of public education system, and we were promised its revitalization; but we only witnessed its near total collapse, with burial arrangement already made with talk of privatisation of our universities. We were promised enhanced security for lives and property but the police itself went on strike. 
 
 

The promises were endless and the failures countless, but these are celebrated by the leadership as successes. They said they had made a difference, though few indeed believed them. 
 
 

It was clear that we were slowly moving towards the situation that says, “Never believe anything until it is officially denied.” And in a situation where the leadership was trying not to be accountable you may suspect everything until it is officially confirmed.
 
 

14.But democracy is not about the accountability of the leader alone. It is about building a system that guarantees not only rights but also imposes obligations on all those who are in it. It is part of the responsibility of every one of us to speak out when things go wrong. But the silence coming from our campuses is deafening. And for want of a proper description, a very bad omen.
 
 

Isn’t there a greater responsibility and clear obligation on the well informed?Every one of us is a shepherd and, sooner or later, the auditor will come round to count the sheep. Time was when there was this robust debate on campus, not just on the salaries and allowances of teachers, but actuated by a genuine desire to improve the objective conditions of the people. But unknown to us outside, and perhaps even to you inside, the campus has long ago given up its true tradition. 
 
 

There is today the absence of involvement by intellectuals in the everyday affairs of society. Gone were the days the likes of Dr. Bala Usman, whose struggle, almost single-handedly, established a tradition of dissent on this campus in the 1970’s.What in the world happened to that tradition? 

And whatever one may say about the ideology that provided the basis for his struggle, there is little doubt that campuses across the country are today all the poorer for the lack of it. You must therefore wake up before it is too late. Or is the teacher waiting to be taught?
 
 

15.Long ago one of your class had prodded you. “ You are all the same, you intellectuals; everything is cracking and collapsing, the guns are on the point of going off, and you stand there claiming the right to be convinced. If only you could see with your own eyes, you will understand that time presses,” Jean-Paul Satre said.
 
 

And as time draws to a close, there are only two choices facing our academics – involvement or escapism, fulfillment or betrayal. There is no third choice. Today you can’t sit on the fence because the fence, uprooted by people’s anguish and resignation, is no longer there for you to sit on.
 
 

No doubt, our campuses had seen better days. Perhaps time for the turn around has not yet dawned for this nation that prefers building stadium than funding universities. A nation that loves identity cards more than improving agriculture. You shouldn’t make matters worse by betraying your own trusts. Leadership at all levels has to, as it were, renew its contract with its constituency.
 
 

Your constituency is people; your political party is intellect; and your ideology is whatever intellect dictates – the fearless pursuit of the goals of humanism.But today I see neither fearlessness nor pursuit after any worthwhile goals. I hope I am wrong.
 
 

Where are the informed voices of Academics and students in the reported cases of high expenditure outside approved budgetary allocations?
 
 

Where were these voices when the unilateral increment of petroleum products was made? Where are these voices when we have started seeing the return of the untidy interim court injunctions? Where are these voices when the very foundation of democracy is being subverted? I am referring to the registration of only 3 political parties out of more than 20 applications. 

Yet among those denied registration were NCP, MDJ and PRP the last two who even under the military were given provisional registrations, in spite of having council chairmen and councilors, four years after; someone is telling us that they are yet to qualify for registration. Looking at the profile of these parties, I tend to believe that they belong to the masses – and I guess this in the very constituency of the academics. Is the academics endorsing the system that allow only the money bags to form political parties?
 
 

At the risk of being accused for campaigning in the university, I make bold to challenge you to come out loud and clear to lead the way. 
 
 

You should all return to your constituencies and enlighten your parents, brothers and sisters to play their civic duties first by registering, then voting, and above all ensuring that the true winners are the ones declared. Otherwise posterity will not forgive you for allowing selfish people to tinker with the rule of the game.
 
 

Permit me to recall, what I said about leadership in my Arewa House lecture in 1998. I quote: “The aspiring leadership must be able to inspire loyalty in the followership and imbue it with the desire and willingness to follow and be law abiding. 
 
 

It must set the example for people to follow.And though it has often been said that people get the leadership they deserve, it is even truer today to say that the leadership gets the followership appropriate to it – the one it begets and nurtures.And, painful as it may be, we must accept that no corrupt and unaccountable leadership can beget a responsible, disciplined community. The leader must be the embodiment of the people’s aspirations and be competent, upright, of positive disposition, able and willing to take bold, painful, unpopular decisions and be able to meet unpleasant situations with tact and equanimity, as and when required. The leadership must symbolize the qualities of sacrifice, integrity, patriotism, competence, vision and acceptance of the spirit and burdens of democracy. 
 
 

The leader and his group need not only to be good leaders in the partisan political game, or in running the country; but they must also be good losers, who will respect the voice of the people when it speaks.” Again I quote:
 
 

“The leadership must be able to guarantee peace for the land and prosperity for the individuals within it. It should be clear that at all times and in all places the issue that is absolutely non-negotiable, is the question of law and order. To many, it has become quite desperate as they leave home everyday in fear for their lives with armed robbers, secret cult gangs and assassins on the prowl. For the majority life is indeed brutish and short.”And even now, for many, under our so-called democracy, nothing has really changed.
 
 

The thievery goes on unabated; and people see no reason to attempt to be disciplined.Perhaps when you consider all this you may begin to appreciate efforts of past leaders of this country who struggled to instill discipline and accountability under a non-democratic setting.It was a difficult, almost impossible, task.And it is a task that we must carry on within order to save the present and preserve the future of our great country.
 
 

And we can best do this within a pluralistic, democratic Federal Republic of Nigeria. Which is what we must now create and nurture.
 
 

And we must keep in mind that the price for the ability to do this is careful vigilance. 
 
 

“People may be born with an appetite for personal freedom but they are not born with knowledge about the social and political arrangements that make freedom possible over time for their children,” Chester Finn. Jr. said. “ Such things must be acquired. They must be learned.” But that is not all.
 
 

“Democracies,” he said, “ flourished when they are tended by citizens willing to use their hard won freedom to participate in the life of their society – adding their voice to the public debate, electing representatives who are held for their actions, and accepting the need for tolerance and compromise in public life.”
 
 

We can only do this by internalising the culture of democracy. As democrats in Nigeria we must learn to eschew rigging, indiscipline, and other corrupt electoral practices in order to avoid the perennial crisis of succession that always threatens our polity. Our elections must be free and fair; our practice of democracy must be by negotiation and reading mutually acceptable compromise; our leadership must always be held accountable by the people and their representatives, and the followership must be disciplined watchdogs for the democratic process.And this is the only way out.
 
 

Thank you very much.