BY ERIC TENIOLA
“It is totally false to suggest, as we are apt to do, that Nigerians are fundamentally different from any other people in the world. Nigerians are corrupt because the system under which they live today makes corruption easy and profitable; they will cease to be corrupt when corruption is made difficult and inconvenient….The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely is a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership… I am saying that Nigeria can change today if she discovers leaders who have the will, ability and the vision”, Chinua Achebe, in his book, “THE TROUBLE WITH NIGERIA”.
“Nigeria could, however, follow another path. Its potential is huge. Its tremendous wealth, if properly channeled, holds out the hope that a stable government could unleash the unquestioned energy and talent that pulsates through the rich ethnic mosaic. The human capital is there. Thousands of Nigerian professionals are well educated and skilled enough to drive the country forward. Anyone who visited Nigeria’s markets and witnessed its people endure the constraints of bad government and the sinking economy can testify to the country’s resilience”.
“Nigerians spend a good part of their lives trying to get the better of the government for their own benefit or that of their family, their village, or their region. Rare is the head of state who acts on behalf of the entire nation. The people are not so much governed as ruled. It is as if they live in a criminally mismanaged corporation where the bosses are armed and have barricaded themselves inside the company safe. Nigeria’s leaders, like the colonialists before them, have sucked out billion of dollars and stashed them in Western banks”, Karl Maier wrote in his book, “THIS HOUSE HAS FALLEN—NIGERIA IN CRISIS”.
In the last couple of years, Nigeria has been confronted with enormous national crisis that could only be compared with the crisis of the 1960s, which eventually led to civil war. In fact, if one reflects on what the country went through from after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election up to the demise of General Sani Abacha, one must thank God that Nigeria still survives as one united nation.
Nigeria’s problem is not just economic. Indeed, it is largely political. Nigeria is still undergoing the crisis of nation building.
It is important that Nigeria policy makers appreciate the enormity of the crisis of nation building still staring at us as a nation. I don’t like to sound alarmist or pessimistic but some of the unresolved conflicts in our country have the potential of escalating into unimaginable proportions at any given time.
The events leading to the return to democracy in Nigeria could only be understood as a divine intervention. Before then the fate of Nigeria, as a country, was precariously hanging in the balance. The country was a pariah nation among the international community. The economy was in doldrums.
The Obasanjo’s Presidency experienced chaos in many fronts. These included communal violence, notable case include, Ife-Modakeke, Umeleri-Agulri, Huasa-Zango-Kantaf, Kuteb-Jukun clashes,etc.
There was also the Bakassi issue, the Niger Delta crisis and ethnic separatism.
The second major crisis of the Obasanjo’s Presidency was the issue of oil subsidy which was triggered by the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), then led by Comrade Adams Oshiomhole. The strike action paralysed the country for days if not weeks. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo was forced to set up a special committee on the review of Petroleum Products supply and distribution. The committee was inaugurated on August 14, 2000 by the then Secretary to the government of the Federation, Chief Ufot Ekaette. The committee was headed by my friend, Chief Rasheed Gbadamosi while the secretary of the committee was Chief Segun Ogunkua from Akure in Ondo state, who retired later as the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. The other members of the committee were Mr. Adams Oshiomhole, Mr. Sylvester Ejiofor, Issa Aremu, Mr. Lucas Damulak, Mr. Joseph Akinlaja, Umaru Ndanusa, Chief Rufus Giwa, Dr. Imo Itsueli, Dr. Pat Utomi, Alhaji Abba Gana, Chief Nkem A. Ekwechi, Mr. S.O. Luwoye, Professor Emmanuel Edozien, Professor Dotun Phillips, Alhaji Ahmed Chanchangi, Chief D.K.O. George Taylor, Chief (Dr.) E.O. Ilodibe, Pastor E.O. Ogun, Mrs Emily Aig-Imokhuede, Chief Richard Uche, Mr. Ray Ekpu, Chief M.O. Onoja (M.M. Jir), Mr. A.S. Okoye, Dr. Samaila M. Kewa, Mr. Funso Kupolokun, Mallam M.S. Bashar, Dr. Titus Adeboye, Mr. C.O. Iwuozor, Mallam Wada Maida, Alhaji A. Umaru, Mr. G.D. Loma, Dr. S. Usman, G.M. Anyanwu and Alhaji G.Hamman.
The following recommendations were made—there is a concentration on the importation of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) to the detriment of Kerosene and Diesel, which are equally critical. All sectors and people should be satisfied; there is need for major maintenance of industry infrastructure to stem the tide of low-capacity utilization and output. Non-availability of needed fuel to power the machines was identified as one of the biggest problems; bureaucracy and politics could be a hindrance to running an efficient and profitable oil sector. Government overbearing influence on the sector should be reduced.
Persistent sabotage of the pipelines, though a new phenomenon, has overwhelmed and tasked the ingenuity of the leadership of the nation’s petroleum agencies. Unless a quick solution is found to this problem, it would be extremely difficult to truck fuel to all parts of the country; government’s involvement in the downstream sector of the oil industry requires a new and more pragmatic approach that gives more opportunities to the private sector. In order words, the sector should be deregulated just as we have seen in the Nigerian Airways and the upstream sector of the oil industry.
Dislocation in the production, supply and distribution of petroleum will continue for as long as government takes the commanding heights in the economy. Prices should find their level based on supply and demand; If and when a decision is taken on the issue of the inevitability of deregulating the oil sector, timing and adequate public enlightenment would be the key to success; Repair of the Nigerian four refineries is very essential as continued massive importation is merely a way of keeping the foreign refineries working. If they are brought back on stream, they will put many Nigerians back to work with the added advantage of better-quality fuel; the government agencies concerned with the petroleum sector, the Department of Petroleum Resources in particular and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to a lesser degree requires greater autonomy to perform their jobs creditably.
Government should explore the possibility of using more foreign crude and sell more of Nigeria’s high quality crude to bring down the price; to curb the problem of vandalization, the principal actors in the oil sector would need to intensify their community relations programmes such that it creates employment, quality life and sustainable development in their operational areas; if and when the oil sector is deregulated, there would be need for a price monitoring agency that would be saddled with making public the movement in the prices of fuel just as obtains in the money market today.
The three tiers of government stand to gain immensely from a deregulated oil sector as they can introduce taxes that would help the economy grow; the availability of petroleum products in the right quantum and time are the only determinants of the performance of the major and independent marketers; the government should develop a comprehensive Energy policy to guide the oil sector and also to provide a basis fir evaluation; the private sector is not necessarily the panacea of the problems bedeviling the oil sector. Both the public and private sectors would complement the other for a better and well-integrated economy; government should restrict itself to providing the necessary infrastructure and enabling environment for good business in the downstream and upstream sectors of the oil industry.
If the recommendations by the committee had been fully implemented, I am sure the Petroleum crisis would have been resolved by now. As it is customary, we have a government in Nigeria that does not listen to itself.
The earlier crisis was the Shari’a issue which was regarded as purely political. The then governor Zamfara state, Ahmed Sani, was the first to introduce Shari’a for criminal law, within a year of the 1999 elections which brought President Olusegun Obasanjo and new state governors to power. The Shari’a Establishment Law was introduced in Zamfara State on October 27, 1999, and came into force on January 27, 2000. The introduction of Shari’a in Zamfara State attracted a huge amount of attention, and Ahmed Sani became the self-appointed champion of Shari’a in Nigeria.
The Zamfara state governor had accurately judged the mood of population. The introduction of Shari’a was initially very popular, for several reasons. Foremost among these was public disenchantment with a government and a legal system which were failing people in many respects. There is widespread poverty across Nigeria, and the north is especially underdeveloped. There was the expectation among the general public that Shari’a, with its emphasis on welfare and the state’s responsibility to provide for the basic needs of the population, would go some way towards alleviating their plight.
People also felt frustrated with the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary: crime was increasing, yet the police and the courts were paralyzed by inefficiency and corruption. Shari’a was seen as an alternative to these problems, offering a system which promised to be faster, less cumbersome, and less corrupt. Finally, the introduction of Shari’a was no doubt attractive to many as a re-affirmation of their religious identity, especially in the context of recurring tensions between Muslims and Christians.
Capitalizing on the mood in Zamfara State, other state governors soon introduced their own Shari’a legislation. By 2002, twelve states had adopted some form of Shari’a into their criminal legislation: Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara. These twelve states were so far the only states in Nigeria where Shari’a courts have the jurisdiction to try criminal cases.
However, some Muslims in other parts of the country, particularly in central and western states, such as Nasarawa and Kwara, where there are large Muslim populations, have been agitating for Shari’a to be introduced there; to date, these state governors have resisted the pressure. However, in the southwestern state of Oyo, it was reported that on October 31, 2002, a man was sentenced to flogging for extra-marital sex and the punishment carried out, even though Shari’a is not in force in the state. He was sentenced not by a Shari’a court, but by an Independent Shari’a Panel.
In all these twelve states, Shari’a applied only to Muslims. State governments have not attempted to coerce non-Muslims into being tried by Shari’a courts. However, non-Muslims are not prevented from accessing the Shari’a jurisdictions and may choose to take cases through the Shari’a courts if they wish. Some have done so in the belief that their cases would be treated faster, but overall, such cases are rare. Normally, non-Muslims accused of criminal offenses continue to be tried under the common law system by magistrates’ or High Courts, which operate in parallel with the Shari’a courts. A third type of court, customary courts, also deal with cases of non-Muslims in the south, as well as in Kaduna State. At the level of state governments, the state attorney general is responsible for the operation of both the common law and Shari’a systems in the state; there is also a Shari’a section in each state ministry of justice.
Most of the twelve northern states have adopted a Shari’a penal code and a Shari’a code of criminal procedure, based, in most cases, on that of Zamfara State. Some, such as Niger State, have opted to amend existing legislation to make it comply with Shari’a and have not introduced a separate Shari’a penal code or code of criminal procedure. There is still considerable confusion about which legislation is in force in the northern states, even among judges, academics, and other people described as Shari’a “experts.” In any event, there is an overlap between the Penal Code for Northern Nigeria and the Shari’a laws, as the Penal Code includes elements of Islamic law and provided the basis for whole sections of the Shari’a penal codes. However, there are some critical differences. In particular, the Shari’a codes contain provisions for death by stoning and amputations which were not included in the Penal Code.
These issues forced Obasanjo’s Presidency to be jittery at that time. It was then suggested within government that a central figure must be brought in to defend the Presidency. The lot fell, on Dr. Ibrahim Alkali Ayagi (1940-2020), who later served as the chairman of National Economic Intelligence Committee.
Between 1975 and 1978, Dr. Ayagi served in the cabinet of Colonel Sani Bello, then governor of Kano state, as Commissioner of Economic Development and later that of Education. In his tenure at the education ministry, two science high schools were built. His interest in education continued after his retirement, when he co-founded Hassan Ibrahim Gwarzo Secondary School, Kano.
In 1984, Dr. Ayagi was appointed acting director of Continental Merchant bank, formerly Chase Merchant Bank of Nigeria. As Managing Director, he was critical of the adoption of the IMF approved Structural Adjustment Programme by the Babangida administration. The same government owned majority equity in the bank, and after, a lawsuit filed by Continental Merchant Bank against the central bank, he was relieved of his position.
He returned to Kano and was appointed Director of the Kano State Foundation. The foundation built two schools, and traded in farms supplies but his tenure ended in controversy due to a confrontational style in his dealing with the state government.
Dr. Ayagi took the challenge and defended President Obasanjo’s government. He appeared on television, radio, seminars and workshops. He held numerous press conferences.
In January 2003, he published a 14-page pamphlet “OBASANJO HAS NOT MARGINALISED THE NORTH”.
Apart from the Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the National Security Adviser, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, Presidential spokesman and the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mallam Mohammed Idris Malagi, we don’t hear of prominent voices defending the Bola Tinubu’s Presidency these days.
Shortly after his appointment, Dr. Ayagi was in the office of the Secretary of the Government of the Federation, to collect data on appointments made by President Obasanjo and other policy decisions. My immediate boss, Prince Dosu Oyelude and all of us gave him the necessary assistance for which he expressed his gratitude.
Let’s go back to his 14-page pamphlet.
Dr Ayagi asserted in the phamplet “these are days of “Politics”. Politics in Nigeria is the profession of politicians who earn their living and/ or who thrive on practicing the art of the possible. The art of the possible is the skill to make people believe in the possibility of the possible. Many Nigerian politicians have that skill in ample supply.
These are days of “Politicians” who profess their own feelings, beliefs and understandings as dogmatic and unquestionable truths and who go about castigating those who do not believe in those “truths” of theirs as enemies of their people and even as enemies of higher revered authorities.
These are days of the “politics” of resuscitation and the realignment of sentiments. The “politics” of resuscitating old conjectures and sentiments and using them to antagonize and to secure a lost political glory and privileges.
The Nigerian nation is full of such politicians. They exist and thrive in all parts of the country. They say what they want to say whenever they want to say it. They talk about how bad the Nigerian economy has been; the “collapse” of the naira; how people have been suffering, with no employment and no income; how the rate of crimes has risen: armed robberies, communal, religious and ethnic/tribal clashes in all parts of the country; market fires, bomb blasts; and especially for the part of Nigeria where the writer lives, “the marginalization of the north.”. All these ills and evils have been happening, according to them, because of the Federal Government—the government that came to power through a popular election in 1999 under the leadership of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
If these accusations have been properly analysed and found to be justified by unbiased and professionally competent minds, one could argue that the responsibility could be heaped on the Federal Government and its leader. That might be a legitimate leadership price to pay. The led have the privilege to blame their leaders for the wrongs of society.
However, the accusations have not been proved. Of course, the communal, religious, ethnic/tribal conflicts and large-scale killings and destruction of property took place in many parts of Nigeria during this period. But this is not the first time such atrocities took place in Nigeria.
Disregarding the periods of the military regimes (which can be explained away by those with the art or skill of the possible), one could trace, through sheer memory, the upheavals and calamities that took place between 1963 and January 1966 and between October 1979 and December 1983. None of the proponents of marginalization could argue that those calamities took place because of the incumbent prime minister or president in the two periods respectively. And if they even dare to do so, they could not say it was because of the incumbent’s “betrayal” or “marginalization” of a section of the country. These are new forms of accusation invented by members of the newly formed elite group of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF).
The most favoured and used words from the lips of many members of the elite group in the part of the country of the writer are: “The North”, “betrayal” and “marginalization” mostly expressed in Hausa.
One hears these words virtually every day, especially from the Hausa section of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Voice of America (VOA) whose correspondents in Nigeria interview these politicians of “marginalization”, and what they tell them as if they were established truths. It is very common to hear from these broadcast organizations such things as: “To, ganin cewa mafi yawancin Yan Arewa suna ganin wannan Gwamnatin bata son su, ko bata yi musu kaza-da-kaza, ko ta yaudare su domin su suka zabe ta, amma ita kuma ta fi taimakawa ‘yan kabilar su da basu zabe su ba, yaya kaza da kaza?”
Meaning something like this: In view of the fact that most Northerners believe that this government is anti-north, or has betrayed the Northerners (who actually elected them) or has marginalized them, and so forth, what would you think about?”
These foreign Hausa broadcasting services do not even have the semblance of neutrality for which their English language broadcasts are known. They report, for instance, that “the North” has decided to do this or that or has decided not to support or vote for such and such candidate in the 2003 elections. Such sweeping conclusions from spurious and non-existent findings/decisions of imagined “Northerners” are not so common on the local radio stations. However, many a friend in “politics” would talk to one as a matter-of-factly as follows:
“Tun da yanzu mu Yan Arewa mun zama saniyar tatse- a tatse mu, a yar”. “As we Northerners have been exploited and discarded”.
In one’s own presence they talk about “we, Northerners”, which, of course, one identifies with tokenly, but then they complete those phrases with statements that one could agree or identify with. This is embarrassing and one tries to immediately find an unobvious way to cover the embarrassment. This makes one to start to wonder about the meaning of “Northerners” and who they are. It gives one the feelings that perhaps one is no longer a “Northerner”. But they use the Hausa word “mu” which means the talker and the one being talked to. So it means I am regarded as a “Northerner” and I am shown to share the same views. In that case what is being said is a misrepresentation of my views and the views of a great number of “Northerners”.
The ‘North’ is a generalized geographical location in Nigeria. However, this geographical location does not exist as a government unit, a political system, a religious denomination, a tribal unit, or, in fact as any unit of anything at all. It is the conceptualized idea of the elite special interest groups who must protect their influence and relevance and who must regain their lost glory. It was only after the coming to power of this new democratic government that the elite groups in the North started to come together to form their special interest groups as a countervailing force to the Afenifere in the South-West zone and to the Ohanaeze in the South-East. The Arewa Consultative (ACF) is the name of the elite groups that selected themselves to form what they see as the vanguard for the “North”.
Maybe groups of this nature had a function during the military administration. It is difficult to see what legitimate functions such groups could play in a democratic setting with multiple political parties. There are 19 states in the “North” and each is headed by an executive governor elected by a majority of the people in the state. These governors, despite their party political differences, meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest to the “North” and to decide on what line of uniform action to take. This is a better and a more suitable democratic group of functionaries to discuss issues of common interest to the “the North” than a gathering of an extremely elitist group, of self-appointed people who carry no mandate whatsoever from the people of “the North”.
Only the (ex-) military elite, the traditional ruling elite and the monied/rich merchant/trading elite groups constitute the ACF, which has no representation from the generality of the people in the “North”. They are friends and associates of one another and selected themselves to form the ACF. They do not relate in any practical way with the majority of the people of the “North”.
Yet these are the people who lead the campaign to portray all the actions and activities of the Federal Government under President Obasanjo as either ill motivated or against the interest of “the North” They created the image of “marginalization” to portray the present Federal Government as Government of the Yorubas”. I must confess the same scenario is being played out in Nigeria of today. The picture Dr. Ayagi painted at that time is the same picture we are seeing today. But does the Presidency need a defence at all? Who remembers what Alhaji Wada Nas (1938-2005) said about the regime of General Sani Abacha GCFR or what Chief Michael Kaase Andooka SAN (61) said about President Umaru Musa Yar’adua GCFR.
In football what counts are the goals scored not the defence tactics, home support or corner kicks. At the end of the day, what will count is performance. The enduring legacy is nothing but performance.
Eric Teniola, writes from Lagos
