Okunrounmu and the Business of Loyalty

By

Segun Onabanjo

liberalnigeria@yahoo.com

 

 

One disgusting side to the open friction between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice-President Atiku Abubakar is that it offers some self-styled analysts-cum-sycophants the opportunity to assault the basic intelligence of discerning Nigerians. In his article, “If the Truth Must Be Told” (Nigerian Tribune 7/9/2005), Mr. Femi Okurounmu, attempted to show Nigerians that he has superior knowledge of the nuances of loyalty in a political relationship. Too desperate to impress the powers that be, he has gone ahead to make further press statements on the same subject. And his jaundiced argument is as follows: 

 

“The President has leveled a charge of disloyalty against Atiku, and it is a serious charge… because the Vice-President is expected to be 100 percent loyal”, Mr. Okurounmu had furiously and credulously asserted in his opening salvo against Atiku Abubakar. The writer monotonously reminded Nigerians about the powers of the President to assign roles to the Vice-President as he deems fit. According to him, a Vice-president is expected to be “fully supportive of his boss” and that he cannot express independent opinions that run counter to that of the President.

 

In order to fully digest Mr. Okurounmu’s logic and subject it to critical inquiry, let us take him point by point. First, if a President charges his Deputy with disloyalty, is such allegation so sacrosanct that it cannot be subject to independent public verification to establish the merit of such accusation?

 

Does a President in a democracy have a licence to charge his victims with any particular offence according to the pitch of his fury or impulses and regard such allegation the gospel truth the public has no right to question? Doesn’t the President have a duty of loyalty in return to his Deputy, especially a Vice-President like Atiku Abubakar, whose absolute loyalty to President Obasanjo made him easy prey for caricature because of the widespread perception that his clingy relationship with the boss had made him a wimp in the eyes of others?

 

Again, does the rigid demand for absolute loyalty, according to the theory of Mr. Okurounmu, mean subjecting a Vice-President to open hostility and public humiliation by a President who works consciously to sabotage his deputy’s legitimate presidential ambition? Is such active animosity and public humiliation a fair reciprocation of the loyalty of a Vice-President?

 

Another fundamental point made by the writer is that a Vice-President should be one hundred percent loyal and should not express opinions that are in conflict with the President. Is Mr. Okurounmu therefore, suggesting that a Vice-President should always support the personal assertions or actions of his boss, even if sometimes, such opinions or actions of the President are in conflict with the constitution or the law?

 

Does a Vice-President violate the oath of loyalty to the constitution and the nation when he is not favourably disposed to a third term agenda of his boss, even if such hidden political objective is in conflict with the constitution, which limits the President to two terms of four years each?

 

For example, Nigerians would also like to be educated whether a Vice-President violates our constitution if he does not publicly support the defiance of a court order by a President who swore to defend the rule of law. The flagrant disregard of a Court of Appeal order to restore Governor Chris Ngige’s police guards after they were illegally withdrawn by the Inspector-General of Police with the active personal (not necessarily legal) support of our President provides another instance of just how far can a Vice-President publicly throw his support behind the personal but unconstitutional actions of his boss in the name of loyalty.

 

In his clever attempt to show his readers that he masters our constitution better than us, Mr. Femi Okurounmu had let his over-zealousness to back the President to get the better of him. The stubborn personal decision of the President to withhold the Lagos state Local Government Councils subventions, despite a Supreme Court ruling, which declared the action illegal, raises further questions about the extent a Vice-President can go in publicly identifying with the actions or opinions of his boss in the name of loyalty.

 

The writer’s arguments are porous and turned out to be like a smoking gun that produces more smoke than light. Mr. Okurounmu appears to be suggesting that the personal opinion or actions of the President are so superior to our constitution that a Vice-President should always blindly throw himself behind such actions or opinions in order to be truly loyal to his boss.

 

Is a public support of an unconstitutional act such as the third term agenda part of the obligations of the Vice-President’s office? The extraneous interpretation of our constitution in the twisted form Mr. Okurounmu wants Nigerians to view it is dangerously misleading. And what does the writer mean by “there cannot be two captains on a ship?” It means that if the captain makes some misjudgment about certain course of actions, which can affect the fate of the ship, it is wrong by the writer’s logic for the co-captain to advise caution. Can the captain afford to risk sinking the ship merely because the advice to prevent such disaster is initiated by his second in command?

 

Despite Femi Okurounmu’s pretence as an objective commentator on the friction between the President and the Vice-President, he frequently exposed his partiality in several aspects of his arguments. He never once had the courage or the humility to admit, even grudgingly, the positive sides of Atiku Abubakar in his relationship with his boss. Instead, he attributed more enormous powers to Atiku Abubakar as chairman of the National Council on Privatization than he actually enjoyed in practice. He ignored the severe limitations under which the Vice-President functions in this role and the ever-distrustful eyes of the President, which are constantly focused on Atiku in this capacity.

 

Even as chairman of the privatization council, Atiku’s powers are not as unlimited as Okurounmu made them out to be, because he cannot award contracts or approve payments without the endorsement of the President who has the final say on every matter. In fact, the council is the most severely monitored and Atiku could not have exercised such unlimited powers without running into collision course with the President who has a reputation as a hardened moral watchdog over the conduct of those who served under him.

 

In his zeal to ingratiate himself with the powers that be, Mr. Okurounmu also accused Atiku Abubakar of abusing his privileges by “building a separate power base or a network of people loyal to him, including Governors.” Any critical reader would demand to know whether there is any place in our constitution that makes it criminal for a Vice-President to build a network of friends to bolster his future political ambition. Even in the United States, Vice-Presidents with future presidential ambitions, apart from the good will of their bosses and party, also rely on the future support of a broad network of friends in political and business circles.

 

What is politics all about? Is it not a struggle to win and exercise power? And can you afford to go into such battle without troops (the so-called network of friends)? A Vice-President with future ambition to succeed his boss who ignores building a network of friends is like a hunter without a gun! Even if a Vice-President has the backing of his boss, the good will of his party machinery, Governors, legislators, political party leaders and members of the business class is still critical to his success in his future endeavour to succeed his boss. What is so criminal about this? Does any law exist that stops this? And therefore, what is Mr. Okurounmu talking about?

 

Clearly, the writer was on a mission to eviscerate the reputation of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and hopelessly ruin his political future. According to Mr. Okurounmu, Atiku should be punished for attempting to run against his boss for the presidency in 2003 even as Gen. Obasanjo was interested in running for a second term. He said the move by Atiku Abubakar “was unheard of” in the history of presidential system.

 

But there is always a direct connection between certain actions and the reaction they induce. There were rumours that, despite the enormous machinery that the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) threw at the disposal Obasanjo to become President in 1999, he was determined to betray the support by ditching the leader of the moment, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.

 

Therefore, if Atiku Abubakar attempted to run against his boss in 2003, it was largely a bargaining chip for survival, which is common in politics. Let us not forget that in 1999, President Obasanjo had no independent political platform of his own and therefore, had to rely on the enormous good will of the PDM to come to power. And if Atiku attempted to run against Obasanjo, even as a way of reminding him of his obligation of loyalty to the PDM, one doesn’t find anything “bizarre” in that move by the Vice-President, contrary Mr. Okurounmu’s arguments. Does that tactical political move for survival justify future reprisals against the Vice-President or humiliating him at will?

 

How would it morally sound if President Obasanjo conspires to send Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar to jail, the very man that granted him pardon as a convicted “coup plotter” and officially endorse his presidential candidature in 1999? Would it as well be sensible for the President to have attempted to ditch the Vice-President in 2003 after the enormous good will the PDM threw behind his candidature?

 

Although Mr. Okurounmu reminded his readers from the beginning that his opinion is not laden with any sentiments, he nevertheless ended doing exactly that. In what appears to be his final moral blow against Atiku Abubakar to make him unfit to succeed Obasanjo in 2007, Mr. Femi Okurounmu had complained that most of the Vice-President’s political allies are crooks. He identified Atiku’s friends as “arrested money launderers, apprehended awarders of fraudulent contracts and confessed mandates thieves.”

 

Indeed, this is the most ridiculous aspect of Okurounmu’s self-serving mission to run down Vice-President Atiku Abubakar. But Nigerians should ask him certain honest questions: Are all the men around the President Saints? What is Okunrounmu’s views on President Obasanjo’s protection of the Uba brothers despite confessions by one of them that they stole the mandate of the people of Anambra state and the criminalities they have committed in Anambra state? What is Okunrounmu’s reaction to President Obasanjo’s chummy relationship with Chief Tony Annenih who is yet to explain what happened to the N320 billion granted his Ministry to tar our roads? What are Okunroumi’s feelings about President Obasanjo’s silence to the many scandals trailing members of his family over unexecuted contracts and under-the table purchase of government houses and controversial purchase of house in the United States of America? What are Okunrounmu’s views on the friendship of President Obasanjo with Chief Olabode George who has been indicted over a N85billion scandal in the Nigerian Port Authority? What are his views on the company Mr. President keeps with people like Arthur Nzeribe, Senator Ararume, Anthony Anenih, Jerry Gana and so on? If Okunrounmu sees nothing wrong in these relationships, what is his problem with Atiku’s friends? 

 

The second leg of Okunrounmu’s grouse with the choice of Atiku’s friends is the accusation that he makes friends with enemies of Mr. President. Does presidential power also cover the choice of a person’s friends? . If Mr. President decides to engage in fights with fellow citizens, is Okunrounmi saying the Vice President is duty bound to join in the fight even if he is not convinced about it? Is Okunrounmu aware that among those people the President accuses his deputy of relating with are the Awolowo and the Abiola families. Is Atiku bound to fight with these noble families because Mr. President does not like their legendary accomplishments which nobody can wish away in the annals of our country?

 

Okunrounmu pushed his position with a conviction that the Vice President should be a dummy without a mind of his own and who must follow the President even if he engages in illegalities.The American example which he selectively referred to does not justify this jaundiced position. Did former Vice-President Albert Gore publicly throw his weight behind President Bill Clinton’s original denial that he had no affair with Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky – the two women who rocked the moral foundation and authority of Clinton’s presidency?

 

Did Clinton accuse his Deputy of disloyalty because the Vice-President refused to slavishly throw himself behind every action or opinion of his boss? In Okurounmu’s warped reasoning, loyalty means that a Vice-President cannot express independent opinion that contradicts his boss’s. Where did Okurounmu get this notion of loyalty?

 

Many of late President Richard Nixon’s aides were convicted to prison terms because they confused personal loyalty to the President with loyalty to the country’s constitution and other American laws. Even as Mr. Richard Nixon was violating the American laws over the Watergate affair, his aides were ready to blindly fall in line because of they perceived the boss as the personification of the state!

 

Once we fail to make a distinction between personal loyalty to a leader and allegiance to the constitution and other laws of the country, we are bound to run into difficulties. The Watergate scandal of 1973, which shook the moral foundation of the Nixon presidency, leading ultimately to his inglorious resignation in August 1974, was a stark lesson in drawing a line between the personal demands for loyalty by a President and the limits of what the constitution can tolerate of him.

 

On a final note, Okunrounmu ‘s posturing was anchored on morality ,making it necessary to have a look at his moral credentials. Okunrounmu was the one who alerted the nation to the charade in the Senate in 1999 that senators collected N5million each as furniture allowance. He was celebrated as a vigilant and conscientious senator. The bubble however, burst when it was discovered that Okunrounmu actually collected N12.5million as furniture allowance,N7.5million in excess of what he complained of. What manner of moralist is this? If Okunrounmu needs economic rehabilitation after the senate bazaar, we counsel that he could get this without putting our hard won democracy in jeopardy. 

 

 

by Segun Adebanjo