No

No! It Is More Northern, Elderly & Islamic Not To Withdraw The Petitions

Abdullahi Ibrahim Mahuta

Since after the elections of 2007 so much water has passed under the bridge. So many things were said and written about it, but the one issue that conspicuously stands out, which was even admitted by the announced president who is the highest beneficiary of this despicable process, is the near universal acceptance that the whole process was flawed. This left the aggrieved parties with the only constitutionally recognized option of seeking redress at the various election tribunals. But of recent, the issue which is gaining prominence on our political landscape is the debate on what to do with those petitions, specifically, the ones filed by Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar.

So intense and important is the issue that the “WEEKLY TRUST” newspaper decided to use it as its cover story in its last edition (September 15, 2007) with the caption “Presidential election petition: Should Buhari withdraw?” Most of the arguments so far proffered, especially by the Regionalists, the Tribalists and the Religionists seemed to tilt towards one direction – withdrawal. This, of cause, without considering the long term effects of such a decision and, worse still, without justifiable reasons.

To the traditionalists, tribalists and regionalist, their spoken reasons are two folds: When they face the nation; at the risk of losing national prominence, they talk of peace and prosperity of the country; the advantages the nation stands to benefit as one indivisible entity. But when they recline to their regional enclaves, they become nepotistic. The new song now is about regional unity; ‘the man now in charge is our brother and so nobody should speak badly of him no matter what’. The reason: simply because of the advantages we stand to gain by having our son in charge. Even these so called advantages are debatable as to whether they are for the whole region or for the few individuals claiming the leadership of the respective regions.

In fact, the pathetic story of young Mohammed and one of the first class emirs of the north tilt this debate in fabour of the later. Young Mohammed, a graduate of engineering from ATBU Bauchi, was all hopes and smiles when he attended and passed an interview with one of the ‘juiciest’ government parastatals in the country. The dreams and satisfaction of his poor parents that their labour had finally come to fruition were dashed when this emir insisted that Mohammed must be substituted by his son who neither attended the aptitude test nor the interview. And so Mohammed was dropped because the elders have talked; the leaders have talked. That’s the cancer in nepotism: never satisfied and always relative. If it involves the whole country, instead of justice, it is region. At the regional level also, instead of justice again, it is relations. Incidentally, Mohammed comes from within the domain of this emir.

So baffling and confusing is the assertion of our leaders that our country can attain peace and prosperity without justice and the rule of law that one begins to look at the possibility of making it to the heavenly garden (paradise) without first going through the painful process of death – everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. What wisdom!

The more closely one studies the utterances and actions of our past leaders in Nigeria, the more apparent and obvious the probable reasons for our country’s backwardness in all human endeavor become. No nation can prosper without the ingredients of justice and the rule of law. They ruled our country from conception to birth; they had the golden opportunity to have laid a solid foundation for the prosperous development of our country. A foundation reinforced with the gravels and steel of justice and the rule of law as the basic components of any prosperous society. But the more they are called or take it upon themselves to mediate on any issue, the more we realize the faulty foundation upon which this nation was built and the more apparent, the inevitability of a major catastrophe facing this nation, unless certain urgent and decisive measures are taken to underpin this faulty foundation.

No! The new Northern policy direction should be towards enthronement of justice and respect for the rule of law whoever and whatever is at stake. I can not see the logic in the arguments that the insistence of Buhari and Atiku to pursue their legitimate cases at the constitutionally established tribunals will amount to ‘rocking the boat’ – Nigerian or Northern. And their seemingly inconsistent and biased mediation is nauseating. When speaker Salisu Buhari was impeached for constitutional breach they were quite, but when Obasanjo was to be impeached for much worse constitutional breaches they were at the National assembly preaching peace and prosperity. When the nation was under siege by political thuggery, flowing with the bloods of innocent souls, they were at the comfort of their houses.

Now Buhari decided to use the most sensible, peaceful and constitutional means of getting redress, they are pressurizing him to stop. What if he had decided to mobilize his people to fight those political thugs? The casualties would have been uncountable; most palaces would have been in ruins by now. Please let’s learn to have a system and allow it to work. Let’s stop personalizing issues. The issue at stake transcends the fact that Buhari, Atiku and ‘Yar’aduwa are from the North or are Hausa-speaking or are even Muslims as Dr. Gumi would want us to see. We are talking about constitutional breaches, injustice, and lack of respect for the rule of law and the grave consequences such attitude would bequeath to our nation.

Have they really thought about the implications of what they are asking for and what the citizens of this country would have learnt? Such a demand could completely erode the confidence of the citizens in the judicial system of the country. It could teach the people to take the law into their hands knowing, full well, that once you are cheated you have no where to go for redress. The resultant effect will, of cause, be chaos and anarchy and I bet, the worse victims would be the leaders and the elites for they are the ones who have much to lose – properties and investments! No Buhari, pursue your case to its logical conclusion irrespective of the outcome as you rightly did in 2003. This is because a more Elderly; more Northern and even more Sheik in the person of sheik Usman bin Fodio advised thus: “…..no nation can prosper on injustice”

SEEKING REDRESS IS ISLAMIC

From the on set, let it be clear that neither the Qur’an nor the holy prophet(SAW) was specific at to the particular method of choosing leaders in islam. It is a well known fact that the holy prophet(SAW) did not leave instructions about his successor. Islam is from Allah, and in whatever way the political history shaped it self is the unfolding of His will. We cannot, therefore, say if the holy prophet(SAW) was silent on issue as important as this it was an omission or accident. We must hold that such omission was deliberate and in accordance with the will of Allah. The intention, obviously, was that the matter being political in nature, the community should stand on its own and choose a leader for itself.

This assertion looks truer considering the heated arguments and counter arguments between the Ansars and the Muhajiroons which preceded the emergence of Abubakar(AS) as the 1^st Khalifa of the prophet(SAW). Neither party quoted any specific verse or hadith to support its claim. In fact, if there was any, there wouldn’t have been any argument for or against a particular person or region as the case was; so also the entirely different methods by which Umar, Usman and Ali(AS) succeeded each other. In addition, sayyidina Ali(AS) would not have refused his allegiance to the leadership of sayyidina Abubakar(AS) for, as widely reported, six months.

In spite of this lack of a divine method, however, certain things remain basic and uncompromising which ever method a community decides to adopt in choosing its leaders. Among them are: consent and loyalty of the people to be governed. And in a situation where certain guiding principles or procedures are agreed upon, respect for and compliance with such principles are compulsory. The prophet(SAW) was reported to have said that when ever people agreed on certain things, it is binding on them and deviation from any of the agreed terms by either of the parties would amount to injustice.

A small example here suffices: when it was apparent to the people that khalifa Umar(AS) would not survive his ailment, they asked him to nominate his successor for them. When Umar(AS) declined this request, they further demanded “O amirul mumineen, if you are not going to nominate your successor, at least, leave some instructions for the selection of your successor”. The people asked for some guidelines; some sorts of electoral act for the peaceful conduct of the electoral process. Umar(AS) appointed six pious people among the deciples, each with a given right to be voted for, with a collective mandate to choose a leader from among themselves. He also appointed the seventh one, Abdullahi bn Umar with a different mandate to serve as a moderator, a kind of arbitrator – not to be voted for. Now the topic sentence is: what would have happened if, for example, Abdullahi bn Umar had violated that ‘electoral act’; those instructions given by the authority Umar and announced himself as the new khalifa? What would be the right thing for the other six people to do? Accept him as the new khalifa or insist on following the due process?

Knowledge is only about gathering of facts, but the simplified application of that knowledge is what is known as wisdom. Sheik Gumi made reference to some hadiths to prove his point that it is unislamic for Buhari to continue with the court case. One of the hadith is: “ …..one who dislike a thing done by his leader should be patient over it. For any one from the people who withdraws his obedience from the government......and died in that condition, would die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (jahiliyya)”

It is my humble and respectful opinion that either sheik Gumi does not fully understand this hadith and the appropriate circumstances for its application or it was a deliberate attempt to serve a particular interest as well. Wrong application of this hadith, will push the view that first, in islam, leaders – of all ranks from the highest to the lowest – are immune to prosecution, much less, impeachment no matter the gravity of their offence. Secondly that the people MUST not complain about their leader no matter what (except if he stops them from performing their prayers), as doing that would expose them to “…the risk of loosing their faith in Allah.”

Analyzing this hadith more closely will reveal the following arguments:

First, the prophet(SAW) said one “should be patient” clearly using the word “should” expressing desirability or rightness of something. He did not use the word “must”, which indicates compelling somebody to do something because of a rule or law. The prophet(SAW)’s words are, therefore, advisory which is in consonance with the general Islamic principles guiding civil suits. Because Allah said “if you have to retaliate, let your retaliation be commensurate with the wrong which was done to you, but if you endure with patience, the best reward indeed is for those who endure with patience” . Therefore, islam does not prohibit the injured or the aggrieved from seeking redress from whoever the accused may be. It only advises one to be patient which is better.

Secondly, the quoted hadith clearly and unambiguously talks about “withdrawal of obedience” which is very much different from pursuing ones rights using approved procedures. For example when sayyidina Ali(AS) refused to recognize the leadership of sayyidina Abubakar(AS), it did not amount to “withdrawal of obedience” because he could not withdraw what he did not give in the first place. When Umar was challenged in the mosque about the source of his bigger garment, he did not quote the above hadith for the people. Rather, he ordered his son who offered the required explanations.

The Islamic leadership history is replete with instances where leaders are challenged, complained against, prosecuted sometimes even deposed because of one reasons or the other. The prophet(SAW)’s deciples such as Abu Musa Ash’ari (Governor, Basra), Mugheera bn Shu’ba(Governor Basra), Sa’ad bn Waqas(Governor, Kufa), Walid bn Uqba(Governor Kufa) and Sa’ed bn Al’as(Governor Kufa) all were at different times complained against, prosecuted and even deposed during the reign of Umar and Usman. In fact, the case of Saed bn Al’aqs is worthy of mentioning here because of its relevance. He was absolved of all blames leveled against him by his people, but yet Usman removed him as the Governor of Kufa based on the reasoning that he did not want to impose a leader on a people whom they do not like.

It should be quiet clear now that the quoted hadith can not be applied in our circumstances. Because Buhari and Atiku are not withdrawing any allegiance from Ummaru Musa wich, in the first place, they did not give. As it was right for those governors to have been punished by the then highest authority in the person of Umar and Usman, so also is it right for our own erring leaders to be punished, by our current highest authorities as represented by the judiciary and the legislature. As for sheik Gumi’s threats that, in the case of annulment and reelection, he would mobilize muslims in Nigeria not to vote for Buhari and Atiku, for fear of losing their faith in Allah, I bet it will not work. Because the muslims know that they will be gaining more faith in Allah by going out to elect more God-fearing leaders. Granted that Buhari’s insistence on the case is a sin, then who is a lesser or worse evil between a person who perpetrates injustice and the one who refuses to forgive injustice done to him? I believe this question will be the guiding principle when Nigerian muslims go out to vote in case of reelections.

After a foray into the world of divinity, sheik Gumi also became political and philosophical. He prescribed credible system and electoral structure as the solution for our political ills. “I am very confident they can”, was his answer when he was asked if he think the present regime can build that credible electoral system that can stop rigging in this country. To achieve that credible structure, he started by “calling on the government to put time, money and credible people in the electoral reform”.

But dearths of time, resources and credible people have never been the problems of Nigeria as far as election rigging is concern. For example, Obasanjo had four years, billions of naira and one of the most credible persons( prof Iwu was imported from America) to prepare a free and fair election. We have irregularities with our elections not because we do not have enough rules and regulations to check the menace. No! it is because we have people who, elderly and religiously, believe that such constitutional provisions should not be invoked to punish the violators of our statutes. What stops a crime of whatever nature, which hampers the peaceful progress of any nation, is the fear and inevitability of punishment, certainly, not the hope and inevitability of forgiveness.

This is my contribution to this great debate. I expect strong and constructive criticisms of my points of view. And I pray that I will, eventually, be proved wrong, because only then, would I have gained more knowledge and become wiser.

Conclusively, while I appreciate the sensitivity of this issue, I take consolation in the soothing words of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) where he said “There will come a time when you will have leaders who will grab and corner all your wealth. They will tell you lie and you will not be deemed loyal and patriotic until you accept these lies for truth. They will also bring about a lot of evil and corruptions and you will not be deemed loyal and patriotic until you accept these as virtues. When such time comes, tell them the truth even if it will lead to fighting. Should any of you be killed in the process, he will die a MARTYR.”