|
SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS OVER ELECTORAL ACT NO SELF-SUCCESSION FOR OBASANJO By
Those who read my three essays on the 2003 Election based on the new Electoral Law published by This Day are asking me to make some concrete suggestions that would get the country out of the impasse. This is the purpose of this essay. To go over the issues in the three essays, one could make two general statements.
One, is that the crisis over the election in 1964 and in 1983 and the lack of credibility they generated was because the two elections were presided over by the candidates (Balewa in 1964 and Shagari in 1983). The NPC and NPN in 1964 and 1983 respectively were determined to massively rig the elections and establish what we call dominant parties and SUCCEEDED themselves. The third one would have been the Self-Succession Project of late General Sani Abacha. Nigerians knew what happened after the elections of 19964; they were recipes for political disaster. Of course God heard the cry of so many people in 1998 and had His way in 1998 otherwise the Chief Olusegun OBASANJO became the President from General Abacha's Gulag. Mr. President, the 2003 Election would be the third Self-Succession Election in Nigerian history. Those who are handling President OBASANJO are assuring him that Baba's own would be different from those of Alhaji Abubakar and Alhaji Shagari in 1964 and in 1983 under the NPC and NPN respectively. The handwriting on the wall should have been obvious to Baba by now. The situation in 2003 would be worse than the previous election because of the enormity of the lingering political crises, which would be exacerbated by the manner in which the Election would be rigged from the Pre-Election Activities.
Two, is that the credibility of the election in 1979, 1993 and in 1999 was enhanced by the fact that the three elections were conducted by Heads of Government who were non-candidates. GENERAL OLUSEGUN OBASANJO as the military Head of State in 1979, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida in 1993 and General Abdul-Salami Abubakar in 1999 were neither members of the political parties nor did they express any preference for any of the parties and candidates.
PERTINENT ISSUES FOR THE POLITICAL CLASS One, is that Nigerians know that President Olusegun OBASANJO cannot be expected to, even if he wants to preside over a Self-Succession Election. Nigerians know that those who have never had faith in the sanctity of the ballot box surround him as advisers.
Two, is that Nigerians know that those who are managing the President cannot promote a level playing field for the PDP candidates and other candidates and parties. Therefore, Nigerians are expecting the PDP-controlled National Assembly to bring about a Law on the Election that would guarantee a level playing field for the PDP and other parties. One hopes that the action taken by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the action forced on the Senate President by a unanimous vote of the Senate stop President OBASANJO in embarking on his anti0democratic course.
Three, is that Nigerians know and are realistic not to expect the President of the Senate who was party to the PDP caucus' decision to rig the Pre-Election Day Process to voluntarily lead the Senate to change the obnoxious and highly partisan sections of the Bill. Therefore, Nigerians know that by the President's assent on the Bill on December 6, 2001 amounted to an impeachable offense as Alhaji Isyaku Ibrahim opined when he knew or ought to have known that the Bill he signed was not properly passed. Was this an act of commission or omission or indiscretion? It was obvious that the President's handlers advised him that he must commence the institutionalizing a one party dominance in Nigeria with himself as the greatest beneficiary.
One would direct readers' attention to distinct acts of commission or omission or indiscretion on the part of the President, which could be pardoned because he was pushing for a goal of "no vacancy in Aso Rock in 2993" policy.
One should observe the shameful act of a Professor of Constitutional Law and Senator for Edo Central, Professor Osunbor who would argue that the Senate Standing Order was superior to the 1999 Constitution. I wish he would read how President Shehu Shagari was misled in on February 3, 1981 to assent to a Bill supposedly passed by the Joint Finance Committee on behalf of the National Assembly on January 29, 1981. I am referring to the action taken by President Shagari on the controversial Bill from a Joint Finance Committee on Revenue Allocation discussed recently by President Shagari in his biography Shehu Shagari: Beckoned to Serve pp. 263-65 published in early 2001 months before the shameful act of the Joint Conference. Professor Ambrose Alli of blessed memory who incidentally hailed from the same area as Professor Osunbor successfully stopped President Shagari's unconstitutional act. President Shagari adequately described how Professor Alli led the States to the Supreme Court that eventually ruled against the Federal Government on October 2, 1981 that the Bill signed into law on February 3, 1981 was unconstitutional. Was this what President OBASANJO wants the states to do? We are talking of electoral law, which is dated!
It is standard parliamentary practice that no Committee of the National Assembly could act at the behest of the President in violation of the relevant Sections of the Constitution in the exercise of the National Assembly's legislative function. The Constitution vests the act of Law making on the National Assembly and not on any of its Committees. This was what Senator Osunbor did on December 6, 2001. He should have read the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
What happened in 1981 could be excused as the practitioners then were learning, but how do we characterize the practitioners of today? I am sure if my able student, Dr. Esther Uduehi were assigned with the responsibility of piloting the Bill, she would have counseled against the manner in which the Bill was written on the prompting of the President bypassing the National Assembly. We are talking of a Law that has implication for the political order!
Can we justify the action of Professor Senator Osunbor? The manner in which the Electoral Bill was passed at the Joint Conference Committee without reference to the National Assembly was a breach of Section 62 of the 1999 Constitution. The action of the Committee members ought to have called for the censure by the National Assembly. The relevant bodies regulating the Bar should take note of the action of the Chairman of the Committee on INEC, a Professor of Constitutional Law.
Can we justify the action of the President? The manner in which the President used the PDP caucus made up of the President, the Vice President, the National Leader of the PDP and the two Presiding Officers of the National Assembly to assume the role of the National Assembly is morally reprehensible. This caucus decided to insert a cause to the Bill ostensibly to promote the one party dominance. For the President to promote a one party rule and work against democracy is an impeachable offense.
What do we call what happened on December 6, 2001? What took place that day was a fraud; that the President amendment was made part of the Bill at the Joint Conference stage without reference to the National Assembly was a colossal fraud, which should be referred to the Police.
The manner in which the President signed the Bill into Law on December 6, 2001 with deliberate haste and with fanfare was a shameful act, which could not be pardoned.
The manner in which the President uncharacteristically asked those not happy with the legislation to go to the Supreme Court was an attempt to thereby politicize the judiciary.
There is no doubt that the Nigerians ‘Self-Succession Election through the Electoral Law signed into law by the President on December 6, 2001 has an odor to it and could derail the democratization process and make Nigeria a laughing stock in the world.
What the Nigerian political class should appreciate is that the Self-Succession Election, which has become the kind of General Abacha’s Project of 1998 is now the OBASANJO’s Self-succession Project. Just as the Abacha’s project had an international dimension the current one masterminded by President’s handlers should be understood in the same manner. It is crisis prone; crisis in Nigeria would have a ripple effect and would have implications for the West African Sub-region. Also peace and harmony in Nigeria would also have the same effect in the Sub-region. I saw it as a public official between 1993 and 1995 when Nigeria fell down and no one in the Sub-region could even say, ' big brother', ‘you have a problem’ with an offer of a helping hand. Nigeria does not expect help from any West African countries because all the States in the Sub-region are dependent on the goodwill of the Nigerian leaders whether tyrants or democratically elected.
The trouble with the Nigerian leaders from the military regime to the present is that they engage in self deceit; they like to pride themselves that they are promoters of what they do not have at home. Nigerian leaders are peacekeepers and democracy promoters in the Sub-region, two attributes eluding Nigeria daily. Do we have peace at home? Is Nigerian democracy a model in the Sub-region?
WHAT MUST NIGERIA DO? This is the easiest question to answer. One, Nigeria through the National Assembly would have to redefine the Election as a PROCESS, which has a (a) Pre-Election Day Activities, (b) Election Day Activities and (c) Post-Election Day Activities that are inextricably linked in determining what we call "a free, fair and credible election'. What we have seen in the Electoral Bill, which is a critical aspect of the Pre-Election Day manipulation to have affect on the Election Day Activities and the Post-Election Day Activities. The Day the President signed the Electoral Bill into Law; the 2003 Presidential Election had been rigged in advance. This is what the members of the political class, the national Assembly who were not privy to the PDP caucus meeting on the Pre-Election Day manipulation should appreciate. This is what the pro-democracy forces in Nigeria and in the international community should realize that the 2003 election in Nigeria should be deemed to have been rigged on December 6, 2001, the day the President signed the Bill into Law. This is why I want the pro-democracy elements in Nigeria prevail on the National Assembly to redefine Election as a PROCESS with three interrelated activities.
Two, Nigerian pro-democracy forces should prevail on the National Assembly that in order to have a level playing field Nigeria would have to farm the Election Process out to a neutral body outside the Nigerian government. One could recommend the UN, the Commonwealth and the Joint Committee of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute of the US.
Three, Nigerians should demand, for the reasons adduced in the Third Essay and published on December 29, 2001 of This Day on Sunday that the National Assembly should direct that the Schedule of Election should follow the schedule as was used in 1979 and in 1998/1999. It is sound democracy sense to commence the series of election with the local government and ending with the Presidential election.
Four, Nigeria would have to respect the Nigerians' rights to political association by removing unreasonable restrictions on Nigerians who want to form their political parties at any level like the Alliance for Democracy (AD), which is technically a regional party. The Ndi Igbo or the South-South could form their regional or sectional party to pursue their interests in a federal Nigeria. Any ethnic groups or religious body like in India with Indian Hindu Party or in Europe with Christian Democratic parties that want to form a political party could do so.
There is nothing in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a party would stop them from doing so. I recall that the party I knew as boy in Benin was called the Otu-Edo. Yes, it was a local party and it gave the impression that it was only for the Edo people. The history of that party shows that the first Secretary General was an Igbo man from Aniocha who later represented Benin City in both the Western House of Assembly and in the House of Representatives. I am referring to Mr. Chike Ekwiyasi. That did not make the Edo people less committed to Nigeria eventually than other people in the country. In fact, as Chief Awolowo would argue, one has to be a good Yoruba person before becoming a good Nigerian. Unfortunately, Nigeria has many "national politicians" whose first appointment in life is federal appointment in Lagos or in Abuja as Commissioners or Minister who cannot even manage a local government area.
It should be noted that a political party, no matter its origin and the interest it serves in the locality, knows what to do when it has interest in a National office. The leaders of such party know that they would have to negotiate some forms of alliances in order to get a seat at the federal table.
Five, Nigeria would have to fund the a genuine practice of Domestic Monitors for the Election Process. I will soon deal with this matter from the experience of 1993.
Six, Nigeria would have to allow the International Observation of the Election Process. The organized one day wonder which the international observer performed in the 1999 election should be substituted with the system where there is an international involvement in the Pre-Election Process and continue to the Post-Election Process.
DID PRESIDENT OBASANJO SUCCEED AS 'A BRIDGE' IN ONE TERM-FOUR YEARS? President OBASANJO is like the two previous elected Chief Executive before him, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Shehu Shagari. Just as these distinguished sons of Bauchi and Sokoto respectively were forced against their will to become the Prime Minister and President respectively in 1960s and in 1970s, Chief OBASANJO was a reluctant Candidate who was forced into this role after the death of General Abacha in 1998. The problem with President OBASANJO is his unwillingness to live by what he genuinely believed in at the time he agreed to the overture of those that invited him and sponsored him in 1998.
It should be noted that before Chief OBASANJO was invited by his sponsors and certainly while he was still in the Abacha's Gulag, Chief OBASANJO genuinely believed in the fact that there had been an injustice in the land since 1993. This was not all.
He believed that the sources of the injustice must be resolved through a national get-together of patriotic men and women of goodwill as a basis of building a stable democratic order. He genuinely believed then that a national get-together of Nigerians of goodwill was the only way of finding an acceptable solution to the lingering crises and not through the gimmicks of the discredited political class who were party to the crises. He did not believe that the solution to the lingering political crises would come through the National Assembly or by an executive fiat as a policy issue and he did not believe that it was a constitutional matter. Does President OBASANJO still hold these beliefs today? What had he done since 1999?
Nigerians of all political persuasions and with no stomach for partisan politics in various ways came to one conclusion that what the Chief OBASANJO told his well-wishers after he was released from Abacha's Gulag was the only way forward. I am referring to the prognosis for a National Conference, which is no different from Chief Obasanjo's get-together of men and women of goodwill to deliberate and find a mutually acceptable solution to the lingering political problems afflicting the country. President OBASANJO and the National Assembly did everything since 1999 to stop Nigerians of goodwill from getting-together. This was why I had to remind President OBASANJO that he forgot he should go back to what he genuinely believed in, which I called his Sermon on the Olumo Rock. Mr. President, your diagnosis and prognosis proffered in June 1998 still remain the only viable option for the country under your leadership. Mr. President, do not run away from it.
Another problem is the President's unwillingness to tell the country the nature of agreement he reached with his sponsors, as to the length of his tenure in office. This is not the time to raise this matter. Why did he change from his original position of "no interest in politics" to "a candidate of the PDP" still remains one of the issues that baffled Nigerians about the transition program. There was a 'pact' or an 'understanding' no matter what we call it between Chief OBASANJO and his sponsors in 1998. This agreement was independent of the political class and the military as an institution.
Readers would recall that that was why I made it clear in the essay Matters Arising from the Presidential Elections, was published in three parts by News magazine in March and April 1999 that Nigeria did not vote for the PDP, but for Chief OBASANJO on FAITH. This three-part essay is still available for Nigerian political class to read. My understanding of the agreement between Chief OBASANJO and his sponsors was that he would be a 'bridge', the 'present', which would be between the 'past' and the 'future'. How long this bridge would be depends on his success rate with respect to how he able to cope with the lingering political problems.
As President OBASANJO ponders over his future and prays and fasts while seeking God's Face, may I with the greatest respect and humility remind the President again of his prophesy in 1998, which I called the Sermon on Olumo Rock that he never kept. Suppose God says, President OBASANJO, "Go back to what I told You, which you revealed to the country in the Sermon on Olumo Rock" what would the President do? The main problem that Christians have today is that the name of God is always used in vain in contravention of the Ten Commandment.
From the past of President OBASANJO, it is obvious that he has no faith in the institution of multi-party politics and he has no faith in the political class. This is why he surrounds himself with retired Generals who too have no faith in the sanctity of the ballot box. This is why all solutions they proffer to all problems, even one dealing how to relate with the national Assembly must be seen in terms of security. Every manifestation of the deep-seated uncertainty such as the crisis in the States among political actors is seen as an excuse for a military invasion. This is the basis of the frequent call for a State of Emergency waved at the Governors of the south in Lagos and Balyesa and never of the north even after many Nigerians had been killed in Kaduna, Kano and son.
The President must be a crossroads today as to what he should tell his countrymen. Nigerians are understanding people, if one tells them the truth. Rulers in the past up till the present have never told them the truth. What does President OBASANJO really have in mind? The warning of his Special Adviser, Chief ChukwuEmeka Ezeife many times that a journey to 2003 would be a disaster because of the monumental problems yet unresolved. This is common sense.
The suggestion that the 2003 should be postponed to 2003 is just postponing the evil day, as he did not say what the machinery that would be in place to resolve these problems. We are using the same excuse to postpone the local government election of 2002. Since when has election been fixed on the basis of the too many problems unresolved? Election is part of the problem solving mechanisms.
We know Dr. Ezeife. We know that many stories have been attributed to the Presidency that the President would not have a stomach for a competitive election in 2003 and that he would rather prefer a situation where he would be given an additional two years to enable him complete his work. What work, Nigerians would ask?
If after three years there are no appreciable changes in the life of the Nigerian people on what basis do the Nigeria people say continue for another two years? This is what election is all about, an opportunity for the present rulers to parade their accomplishments and an opportunity for their challengers to lay out their vision. Dr. Ezeife, I know what you are talking about; we should allow the election to be used to resolve these problems.
Nigerians are witnesses to how on October 1, 2001 that the manifestations of the lingering political problems made the President to tell his countrymen and women that there was nothing to celebrate on Independence Day. He told the Nigerian people and the international community that he underestimated the enormity of the problems when he took over in 1999. What does the President actually have in mind? He should take his countrymen and women into confidence. Nigerians are therefore asking, does Dr. Ezeife speak for the President on this matter?
Nigerians would want to know whether the President is willing to talk to the country candidly on what he genuinely believes in.
Nigerians would want to know from the President if he shares the views of Nigerians and in the international community that he would not be able to stomach a free and fair election in 2002 and in 2003. If he cannot withstand the smoke, he should get out of the kitchen!
PRESIDENT OBASANJO AS A NON-PARTY PRESIDENT FOR EXTRA ONE YEAR In response to the plea of the President's Special Adviser on Political Affairs, Dr. Ezeife that the President and other office holders should be given an additional two years, the question still remains, what does the President want? I can assure the Political Adviser that Nigeria would and should be willing to give President OBASANJO ALONE an extension of another one year beyond 2003 on certain conditions.
ONE, that President OBASANJO would personally ask of this from the Nigerian people.
TWO, that President OBASANJO would formally renounce any party affiliation.
THREE, that President OBASANJO would have to announce the content of the work that he would be doing with the extra one year, beginning with 2002.
CONTENT OF WORK FOR PRESIDENT OBASANJO 2002-2004.
One could suggest what the extra one year would be used for beginning in January 2002. HE WOULD RENOUNCE HIS AFFILIATION WITH THE PDP and COMMENCE THE PROCESS OF RESOLVING THE LINGERING POLITICAL PROBLEMS AFFLICTING THIS COUNTRY. As a non-party President on the new mandate of the Nigerian people, he would be faced with dealing with two fundamental issues.
A TACKLE THE TWO HOWS As a non-party President, he would have to announce the machinery for commencing the National Dialogue on the future of the country that would center around two questions on Nigerian unity, which I made clear in my Vanguard Independence Essay of October 1, 2001. The two questions, which I called the two Hows should be resolved within the concept of one Nigeria are:
The resolution of these two questions would inevitably call for a renegotiation of the Nigerian State and would lead to new Nigeria where the fears of marginalization would be removed and different states or zones would take care of their fortunes. The New Nigeria would make the Center less dominant as we inherited from the colonial master in 1960, which was reversed by the many years of military rule. Since the Federal Government would cater for the common services and NOT for the day-to-life of Nigerians from Abuja as we have it today, the Presidential election would be less critical to the survival of the union. This was what Nigeria had before 1966 and the four regions were allowed to develop at their own rate. Of course, the four regions had access to their resources as the basis of their development.
B. PRESIDE OVER A SUCCESSION ELECTIONS FOR OTHERS As a non-party President, President OBASANJO would be expected to preside over the various Succession Elections in a New Nigeria at the Local and State and National levels in 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively. Since he would not be a candidate, that would reduce the full internationalization of the Election Process.
A 2003 Election under the partisan Electoral Law under the present Military dictated Constitution, which has no reality with Nigerian federal/plural society, would be unacceptable. It would further reduce the States to a glorified local government and of course, automatically make the PDP the dominant party and President OBASANJO the only viable candidate with the handlers in tact and without a resolution of the lingering political problems. The end should be obvious by now, it would be a recipe for a disaster. Is this the legacy the President wants? Would he be able to turn the matter around in a second term, the answer is no!
NO MORE UNSOLICITED ADVICE FROM ME IN 2002 As I wish my readers a Happy New Year, may I use this forum to tale some leave from comments on Nigerian issues in the newspaper in 2002 except when solicited and commissioned. I have to take this position for obvious reasons. I have written enough by way of providing background information from which many writers on Nigeria can continue to comment on Nigerian affair.
I can count over fifty essays on various subjects in the Nigerian newspapers and magazine and in the WWW since 1999 that are still available to readers who want to know my views. I expressed views on such issues as the Politics of Oil, Sharia, on what President OBASANJO could do to survive, on whether the retired Generals should be welcome into politics, on the US-Nigeria Military Pact, etc.
I have many unpublished academic papers that are being put together as a book. I put together many monographs, such as the one on the June 12 and recently on Trial of Chief Abiola and the Criminalization of Democracy in Nigeria, which are still in circulation. I shall continue this tradition to respond to many unanswered questions about Nigerian politics.
I have a book soon to come on the what the minorities in Nigeria could do from my experience in the past effort at putting together the minorities in the north and in the south. This book is called Beyond the Tripod. I have a serious writing commitment about my political life, which I have to complete in the early New Year.
The year 2002, would be a highly partisan year. Since I do not belong to any party, I am available as a political consultant to any political party or candidate who would need my services. I do not want to be misunderstood from my essay in the politics of 2002 as making a case for or against one party or candidate.
I am available to be consulted by any party or any candidate who believes in the sanctity of the ballot box from a competitive election and would want my advice on terms mutually acceptable between the client and my humble self. December 2001 |