|
Executive equivocators By THEY are no longer directly in power but they continue to make the news for the wrong reasons. Among them, they share a reputation for prevarication. On several occasions, they exposed their ugly teeth of contempt for the Human Rights Violations' Investigation Commission (HRVIC), headed by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa. The commission is now fed up with the game of "now you see us, now you don't" being played by chief equivocators Ibrahim Babangida, Mohammadu Buhari and Abdulsalami Abubakar. Justice Oputa has had to issue a warning to the "three musketeers" to give up the game and appear before the commission to answer to serious allegations of human rights abuses. As usual the words fell on deaf ears. These are executive truants, you must remember. When they say "yes", they actually mean "no". When they say they're coming, they are fleeing, saying in effect, "catch us if you can". Their words have become as slippery as the saliva. Oputa and his team can no longer hold them on their words. And Nigerians are now tired of hearing unacceptable reasons why Babangida and company feel unsafe to appear before Oputa's commission.
There is something illuminating about these men who were once lords unto themselves. They once held the highest seat in the country and they promulgated laws which they imposed on all Nigerians. As heads of state at different times, they expected everyone to obey their own laws, some of them odious and hateful laws. Many years after their unceremonious exit from office, they still live under a huge shadow of fear. There must be some kind of guilty conscience lurking somewhere in their hearts. There is the fear of the unknown insiders who could spill the beans about their gory past. They are worried about the unknown revelation that could stir public outrage. But there is a contradiction in their arguments. While they can walk freely around the country, even if with shadowy bodyguards, they find it unsafe to appear before the Oputa panel which is in fact holding court in their own part of the country.
What is Babangida afraid of? Why does he fret whenever someone whispers the words Oputa panel into his ears? Why can't he appear before the panel and start the process of reconciliation with the victims of his policies and brutal human rights abuses? Why should a former head of state be the number one lawbreaker? What does he hope to achieve by challenging the constitutionality of the Oputa panel? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the panel is found to be unconstitutional would that ruling make the work of the panel unnecessary for national healing? The people of Nigeria do not need to become so litigious as to resolve every matter through the judicial process. Even the courts sometimes encourage litigants to seek resolution outside the judicial process. Reconciliation and forgiveness is better achieved on a personal level rather than when the courts impose it. A victory in court does not always translate to peace on the ground but feelings of self-flagellation and penitence publicly or privately expressed can go a long way to healing old wounds. Whether constitutional or unconstitutional, the Oputa panel remains an essential healing balm which disaffected Nigerians require to get on with life and forget the past.
Essentially Babangida has been playing up three cards of different colours since he was urged and later summoned to appear before the Oputa panel. First, he advanced the argument that the atmosphere and indeed the environment were not safe enough for him to appear in person before the Oputa panel. The second excuse proffered by Babangida is that there is another case in court and it would be prejudicial for him to appear before the human rights commission while the court case remained unresolved. The third and perhaps Babangida's most recent reaction to the summons to appear before the Oputa panel was the mounting of a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the human rights panel. All three strategies represent the last ditch efforts by Babangida to delay the inevitable. Whether as a military head of state or a "bloody" civilian (to use the common military phrase in Nigeria), Babangida has well and truly lived up to the sobriquet - Maradona -- given to him by the Nigerian press. Babangida likes to dribble around issues but his current problem with the Oputa panel might prove to be the end of the dribbles. It might also unravel the myth about the man Babangida and his past activities. It is strange that Babangida, the man who, for over eight years, behaved and acted as if the Nigerian State belonged to him, is now seeking refuge in the Court of Appeal. Does he have the right to do so? Did he grant Nigerians the same opportunity and legal right when he was the military president?
As a former head of state, Babangida must obey the law of the land. The Oputa panel is not a dragon or monster looking for people to swallow in an unjust manner. The panel was set up not to convict people but to correct the ills of the past, to reconcile individuals and communities, to install peace where distrust and violence have taken over. Irrespective of Babangida's reasons for not appearing before the human rights commission, his continued evasive tactic will continue to shred his integrity and image, whatever might still be left intact. Babangida should borrow a leaf from President Olusegun Obasanjo. No one, not even Babangida, can claim that they are above the law or above a president elected by the people of Nigeria. The more Babangida continues to defy the summons from the human rights commission, the more likely the Nigerian people will tend to believe whatever they like about Babangida and his past.
Babangida must understand that his present arrogance and obstinacy only help to feed rumour. Rumour is a quick killer. It can destroy in one moment a reputation built over many years of hard work and personal sacrifice. The choice before Babangida is clear: to wear the badge of dishonour, that is, the undisputable toga of national disrespect and ridicule or to make a fresh start with the Nigerian people and claim his rightful place in the honour roll of respectable Nigerian leaders. If he chooses the former, as he is most likely to do in view of his past record of obstinacy, the reward will be nightmares, restlessness and a diminished role in the country. The latter choice will transform Babangida's fast deteriorating image, from a villain to a resurrected hero.
December 2001
|