Soyinka’s Despondency, Obasanjo’s Diatribe on Buhari’s Candidature

By

Ibrahim Dan-Halilu

idanhalilu@yahoo.com

 

 

The candidature of Muhammad Buhari as the All-Nigeria People’s Party presidential flag bearer in the 2007 election has drawn the ire of Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka and provoked Obasanjo’s scathing remarks on ground of the military background and credentials of the former head of state.

 

Professor Soyinka was reported as having said at a press conference in Lagos recently that the grounds on which Buhari is being promoted as alternative choice to PDP presidency are not only shaky but also pitifully naive.  He cited the human right records of Buhari’s military regime and refusal of the former head of state to appear before the Oputa Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violation to defend charges of human rights violation against his administration of 1983-1985.  Soyinka’s further grouse was that Buhari has not shown any remorse for the gross violation of human rights and extra judicial killings committed by his regime.

 

The President for his part was speaking at the opening of a Third Business Roundtable organized by the Economist Intelligence Unit in Abuja last week.  In what many described as a reaction to Buhari’s earlier criticism of the administration’s economic reform programme as a total failure, President Obasanjo said the ANPP Presidential candidate was still living in his military past, thinking he could restructure the country as he deemed fit.

 

Obasanjo further explained to the gathering that his administration had to appeal to the National Assembly to have executive bills passed into law, wondering how Buhari could restructure the country when the constitution has not given him or any holder of the office the power to do so.

 

There is something extra-ordinarily common to the remarks of these two anti-Buhari elements.  Both Professor Soyinka and President Obasanjo have not denounced Buhari’s candidature on basis of corrupt tendencies, lack of credibility or incompetence to perform the functions of the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That they have not been able to state a single reason outside his military past is a plus for Buhari.

 

A second common feature of their remarks was the retroactive reference to his military background as a disqualification for his aspiration, which is totally irrelevant in the circumstance.  Like Buhari’s head of campaign team Chief Tony Momoh rightly pointed out, Soyinka was misrepresenting issues.  He was deliberately “situating things in two different historical contexts and reaching an uncharitable conclusion on Buhari.” 

 

It is curious for the Professor of Literature to situate the decisions and actions taken by Buhari as military head of state side by side his aspiration to the presidency in view of the fact that military regimes are by their nature undemocratic.  If Soyinka’s benchmark for assessing aspirants to elective offices is anything to go by then more than half of the current members of the state and federal legislatures are not fit for the positions they occupy because they were at one time in the history of this nation political appointees of one military administration or another. 

 

Some of them had served as ministers and commissioners in former military regimes.  Others like governor Olagunseye Oyinlola of Osun State and Senator Tunde Ogbeha were military governors in past military regimes but they were elected by their constituents to represent them. 

 

It is true indeed that Buhari led a military regime that adopted military decrees to govern the country.  In doing so, Buhari and his military colleagues have justified their adoption of such laws on basis of the rottenness of our country and the collapse of societal values.  Even more so, the actions attributed to Buhari were not his personal decisions but those of the Supreme Military Council of which he was only a head.

 

While it is true that under the Buhari regime some Nigerians were executed for various offenses, one begins to wonder why Soyinka has failed to realize that while the Buhari regime executed people found guilty of drug trafficking and armed robbery, the current regime that is supposedly a democratic one had killed hundreds of Nigerians in Zaki Biam and Oddi for attempting to protest some government policies which they perceived as detrimental to their common interest.  I thought Soyinka would be interested in making a comparison between the two regimes and telling Nigerians who between the two leaders committed gross violation of human rights.

 

Regarding the accusation that Buhari disrespected the law for his refusal to appear at the Oputa Panel in 2001, it is only those that did not appreciate the motives for setting up the panel in the first place that would take offense in Buhari’s non-appearance.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Oputa Panel was a political tool crafted to embarrass some former political leaders and destroy their political base.  This fact came out clearly because years after the panel has wounded up and submitted its report, Nigerians have yet to witness any serious implementation of a white paper on the Oputa Panel.  Besides, the panel as constituted was not established by law or any act of the National Assembly.  It was a creation of President Obasanjo and his cohorts with a view to achieving some personal goals.

 

I have no doubt that if the panel were established by law and under an independent ombudsman, Buhari and others who refused to appear would have made appearance and defend themselves of all the charges made against them.  But they saw it for what it was – a political tool, which is why they boycotted it.  For a man that subjected himself to the rigours of party nomination, political campaign and even mass action against undemocratic tendencies of the current administration when progressive elements like Comrade Adams Oshiomhole stayed away, it is only obvious that he would have presented himself at the panel to give a lie to the claims of his detractors.

 

As a matter of fact since his joining party politics in April 2002 Buhari has demonstrated more democratic credentials than many of those that lay claim to long political career.  Contrary to Soyinka’s claim that Buhari has not changed a hoot, the retired general has demonstrated exceptional departure from his military orientation.  He has transformed from a dictatorial military general to a liberal civil politician.  Like Chief Momoh illustrated with facts, Buhari has not contested the presidential election as an independent candidate.  He registered with a political party and sought nomination for the party’s presidential ticket, which he was gladly given.

 

After the 2003 presidential election was conducted and results were announced, he felt aggrieved by the outcome.  He did not carry gun or rented a crowd to cause chaos but adopted a legal option.  He took his case to the Election Tribunal and later to the Court of Appeal and finally to the Supreme Court.  This is a strong demonstration of respect for the rule of law and due process.  When the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in favour of the incumbent, Buhari did not take up arms to form a parallel government or lead a rebel army to forcefully seize power.  He accepted the court verdict but said that he disagreed with the ruling.  For me, this is a practical demonstration of democratic culture, respect for the rule of law and political tolerance.  If we cannot adopt Buhari as a good model of a true democrat, we should at least appreciate his quick adjustment to civil life.

 

If Buhari wanted he could have plunged the nation into a sectarian violence that might escalate into a civil war.  But being a patriot that he is, he kept his cool, persevered and exercised due caution and extraordinary patience.  He knew that 2003 was not the end of presidential polls in Nigeria. He believed that there would be many more chances for him to contest the election and for Nigerians to demonstrate their love and trust for him. He is vindicated as he stands today for another round of presidential polls slated for April. 

 

It is a credit to Buhari and his supporters that despite the provocations and arrogance of the leadership of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), they did not compromise the peace and tranquility of the nation.  He remained firm, committed and vigilant to the cause he champions – emancipation of the Nigerian lower and middle classes from the oppressive policies and programmes of the current administration.  This is why he described Obasanjo’s economic reforms as a disaster.  For any reform programme to be meaningful it must serve the common good of the people.  And for any government to be relevant and desirable it must factor its reform programmes on that fulcrum - the common interest.

 

It is inconceivable that while ordinary Nigerians like me can see Buhari’s transformation quite manifestly, a personality of Professor Soyinka’s sophistication and exposure has failed to see an iota of this change in orientation of the man. If I were to write an epithet on Buhari’s statue, I will put the inscription: “This is a most misunderstood personality of our generation.  His love is misrepresented as hatred. His love for the Nigerian people was misinterpreted as hatred and his disdain for injustice and oppression was regarded as tyranny.”  My conclusion is that if all Nigerians politicians were like Buhari, our democratic process would have attained maturity by now.

 

Contrary to President Obasanjo’s diatribe, Buhari was not exhibiting any military mentality or lack of understanding of the principle of separation of powers.  He was rather challenging the President to adopt lobby as a key strategy in winning the support of the legislative branch to have his bills passed into law.  It is ludicrous of the President to try teaching Buhari the rudiments of democracy because he has not exhibited this much in the last seven years of his administration. Instead of lobby and persuasion, the President has adopted blackmail, witch hunt and deceit to get his bills passed, where he even exercised patience to send bills to the National Assembly. 

 

On majority instances, he took unilateral decisions and only sends bills to the legislature for retroactive endorsement.  He has done this with debt repayment and the declaration of State of Emergency in Plateau and Bayelsa states.  It was only after his former Minister of Finance, Dr. Okonjo Iweala had announced that payment had been made to the Paris Club that the appropriation bill was sent to the National Assembly. The Oputa Panel was established without any act of the National Assembly or passed law.  The National Political Reform Conference too was inaugurated without appropriation of funds by the legislature to carry out its activities.  The money was sourced from Only- God-Knows-Where.

 

The National Assembly at its first session in 2002 has short-listed over thirty impeachable offenses committed by the President and neither the President nor his spokes persons refuted the claim to date. The only reason the impeachment motion was not pushed further was because the legislators did not have the moral courage to complete the process.  Many of its members were alleged to have collected money and refused to sign the impeachment notice. Despite all the soft-pedalling of the legislature in dealing with the executive branch, it was forced to effect a change of its leadership four times between 1999 and 2005 for failure to fall in line with the insidious demands of the President.   

 

Professor Soyinka has either erroneously or blatantly refused to ask a valid question: Why did the Nigerian Senate change its president four times in two sessions?  Was it because the men on the scene were incompetent, fraudulent and corrupt as Nigerians were made to believe?  The answer is simple.  The leadership was changed because it challenged the authority of the executive to govern by its own whims and caprices instead of laws enacted by the National Assembly.  President Obasanjo was so intolerant of due process and the rule of law that he could not give the legislature ample time to debate his bills before signing them into law.  In some cases, he did not deem it fit to send any bill at all because he believes he is a sovereign President of the republic. 

 

Indeed Buhari is aware that he cannot restructure the country without ample support of the National Assembly.  One can say without any fear of contradiction that Buhari’s castigation of the Obasanjo administration’s economic reform is purely based on his belief that the government did not make due consultation with the National Assembly before packaging the reform programme. The inability of the reforms to be widely accepted is due largely to the non-involvement of the legislature in their formulation.  What Buhari was saying in effect was that if he becomes the President, he would work in collaboration with the National Assembly and the civil society to draw up a people oriented and focused reform programme that will not only be accepted but also supported by the electorate.

 

If President Obasanjo could not restructure Nigeria, he could not package a populist reforms programme and could not have many of his bills passed into law by the National Assembly, it is not because the legislature was not proactive or efficient.  It is largely due to his inflexibility and failure to see things differently.  His failure to accept superior viewpoints and reflect same in his bills has generated a lot of controversy in matters that should have ordinarily been settled amicably.  Consider his stand on electronic voting and the Data Capture Machine against the clarion cal by many Nigerians that INEC was unprepared for the process.  The long drawn controversy in this matter has led to late start of the registration, which in all probability will disenfranchise millions of Nigerians. 

 

From Buhari’s recent political actions, one can deduce that he can work much more harmoniously with the National Assembly.  His demonstration of courage, patience and caution amidst unsolicited provocation and misplaced arrogance of the PDP leadership and government during the 2003 electoral dispute has clearly shown that he would be extremely tolerant of opposition and susceptible to working with the legislature and judiciary in strict compliance with principle of separation of powers. Unlike Obasanjo, he will not blackmail the leadership of the legislative chambers to get his bills passed because of his uprightness and high sense of discipline.

 

What every Nigerian will testify to is the fact that he will not offer material inducements to get bills passed or to get confirmation for his nominees for ministerial appointments as the current administration has been severally accused.  He rather would govern without Ministers as did former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa during the second republic.

 

One last word to both Professor Soyinka and Obasanjo.  It is not their mandate to tell Nigerians whom to elect as their next President.  For Soyinka, his constituency is the academics.  He is ably qualified to campaign for or de-campaign a candidate seeking office of the Vice Chancellor in Ibadan or any university for that matter because he has been in that clime for over three decades.  But politics is not his terrain.  He cannot speak authoritatively on this field because he was never an active player in the real sense. I doubt if he can win a local election in his ward or senatorial zone. But Buhari has tested his popularity and acceptability nationwide. The fact that he scored over 12 million votes in the 2003 election is an indication that he is accepted by a large section of the Nigerian population. They should leave it to Nigerians to decide. We don’t need their mentoring.                

 

Ibrahim Dan-Halilu

Badarawa - Kaduna