When I first learnt of the money laundering allegation involving Dr Andy Uba, I dismissed it as the handiwork of mischief makers who were out to discredit Olusegun Obasanjo and his government. To my expectation, Akin Osuntokun, a spokesman to Mr President denied the allegation almost immediately. I had every reason to believe Akin. My initial belief was that President Obasanjo, who has been at the forefront in the war against corruption, couldn’t have kept a rogue as Special Assistant on Domestic Matters for over seven years without knowing it except if the man was doing some ‘legalised’ dirty jobs for him that Obasanjo could not let go.

 

But the affidavit of Mr Guy Gino as pasted on the net and reported in major newspaper across the country was so detailed and damaging that I was expecting Andy Uba to address a press conference on the issue to immediately clear his name. The gravity of the offence was so much that it could not just be ignored. That the presidential jet, a symbol of our national image, was used to launder money is unheard of anywhere in the world. Andy Uba was possibly out of the country with Mr President to China at the time the news broke out. Therefore, his failure to respond instantaneously could be excused.

 

The first denial from the Presidency was made by Akin Osuntokun, but it was a total disappointment and an insult to our sensibilities. According to him, the report should be dismissed on the premise that the source was contentious. Who is asking for the source of the allegation? The question he ought to have answered was whether Andy Uba committed the offence or not. As a responsible spokesman, Akin ought to have sought Andy’s opinion on the matter before coming to the public with their own side of the story. Talking about the source of allegation without addressing the issue at hand is diversionary and it amounts to admittance of guilt.

 

To worsen the matter, the President’s spokespersons were busy looking for whom to blame for making the issue public, thereby neglecting the substance. It is Atiku Media Organisation, which has been at the receiving end of their onslaughts that received the knock. If a rat is seen at the State House, it is Atiku Media Organisation that is to blame. If any negative report is published in the media, it’s Atiku that is responsible. Even if the Atiku group claims responsibility for opening the can of worms, has that made Andy Uba not guilty as charged? If a thief is caught with his loot, can he absolve himself by pointing accusing fingers to the informant who made his arrest possible?

 

The President Obasanjo’s group were merely looking for a saving grace by playing to the gallery. What can we say of the Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu who should have just kept quite instead of aggravating the matter? What did he mean that he was not going to investigate the matter until prompted by the United States of America? When has EFCC become an agency under the American State? Does Nuhu Ribadu really know the implications of what Andy did? If he doesn’t know it, what Andy did is worse than what Governor Joshua Dariye did in London. At least, Dariye committed the offence without putting our national image in jeopardy. Assuming that the presidential jet was impounded, President Obasanjo and his entourage would have returned in a chartered flight at the expense of all of us. This is aside from the humiliation suffered. Ribadu has disappointed me.

 

That lady Loretta was brought into the country to address a press conference denying the charge is another blunder. Why has Andy Uba not made a public statement in person? Has he suddenly become dumb that he has to employ the services of other people to speak for him? Loretta was even said to have agreed that she received money from Andy but that it was not up to the $170,000. Can someone help me tell these VIPs [Vagabonds in Power] that it is not the amount that matters but that the presidential jet was used and that President Obasanjo benefited from the deal? In a civilised society, President Obasanjo would have thrown in the towel since.

 

The impromptu sack of Andy Uba from the Presidency that was touted as resignation has not in any way solved the problem. If is true that Andy tendered his resignation in pursuit of his political ambition before the President travelled, why was it not made public? You people at the State House can backdate whatever you like, but remember that you cannot backdate what we know to deceive us.

 

After all is said and done, Nigerians wants answers to these questions. Is Andy guilty or not guilty? What is President Obasanjo’s level of involvement?  Please hurry up, we are waiting.

 

 

Alh Abdallah Mailafia Shaibu

 

Lafia, Nasarawa State