Simon Kolawale Live!

My phone rang. I was deep in sleep, but I was rudely woken up Wednesday morning by the call. “Sorry to wake you up, Simon. Have you heard? The president is dead,” the voice said. Half-awake, or half-asleep, I replied: “It’s not true.” Why was I so confident President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was not dead? Well, let’s look at it this way: anytime the man travels, he dies. He dies on a regular basis. There are times that he dies even when he has not travelled. There is hardly any month that the man is not rumoured dead. For that reason, I am very reluctant to flow with the rumour. Also, if Yar’Adua dies, it will be announced officially. Nobody can hide it. As a Muslim, he will be buried same day. You cannot bury him in secret and lie to Nigerians that he is still alive. Even when the almighty Gen. Sani Abacha died, we were informed immediately and his remains were flown to Kano for burial same day. But why are people so eager to write Yar’Adua’s obituary? Well, he is seriously ill. That breeds rumours. Also, there are those who are so uninspired by his leadership that all they wish is that he would leave office – resignation or death is a matter of details. Just go! That is the message. So the rumours keep flying around. We have to realise however that we are not God. In our culture, it is uncharitable to be discussing somebody’s death while he is still alive. Illness, life and death are beyond our powers. I am not Yar’Adua’s fan, but as a fellow human being, I feel nothing but sympathy for him. It could be anybody. Anyone who has lost a loved one to complications arising from an internal organ problem will feel nothing but sympathy for the president. I am so uncomfortable with people ridiculing him on the basis of his ill health. It is in bad taste. But the current spate of rumours and conjectures has set me thinking about possible scenarios in our fragile polity. I’m writing on that today.

For those who say the president should resign, their request will certainly throw up a lot of issues which will again test our feeble nationhood. If Yar’Adua leaves office now, who succeeds him? The natural answer to that is, of course, Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan. Section 146 of the constitution is very clear on that. But if a Southerner becomes president just two years after another Southerner (Olusegun Obasanjo) finished a two-term tenure, what happens to the “power shift” and “power rotation” arrangements? The answer looks quite simple if devoid of political sentiments. But what is politics if not sentiments? Ask a Northerner the question of who succeeds Yar’Adua in the event of resignation and his answer will most likely be different from that of a Southerner. The Northerner – who will “lose” if power returns to the South so soon – will be quick to point out the informal political understanding that power should rotate between North and South. He will probably suggest that Jonathan should resign and allow a fresh presidential election to be held so that the “understanding” can be maintained. Jonathan could be offered a way back as running mate so that he can return to his position. On the other hand, the Southerner – who will “gain” if Jonathan becomes president – will argue that rotation is “unconstitutional” and the constitution should be followed in this instance. The argument will go on and on. These are the sort of debates that test our fragile nationhood. They raise tension, revive old wounds and set us back again.

The Jonathan Scenario is a timely reminder of many “knotty” questions that we never envisaged while we were writing the constitution and putting political arrangements in place. There are so many other questions that we have not had to answer yet, but they may raise their heads one day. For instance, if we say power is shifting to the South after spending eight years in the North and then the president-elect dies, the constitution says the vice-president-elect will assume office. In this case, the VP-elect is going to be a Northerner judging by our “political understanding”. That would mean a Northerner succeeding another Northerner. How would Southerners take that? Another scenario: even though we had a rotation understanding in 1999, but in 2003, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari ran for presidency on the ticket of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). If he had defeated Obasanjo of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Buhari would have been sworn in as president, making a mess of the power rotation understanding. Let’s look at another scenario. Let’s say Yar’Adua is strong enough to rule Nigeria for eight years but he is defeated by a Southerner in the 2011 election, what will happen? The Southerner will be sworn. That’s what will happen. That would effectively disrupt whatever power rotation understanding we have on ground. But let me complicate things a bit. If Yar’Adua steps down in 2011 and the rotation agreement throws up another Northerner as president, how many years will he spend? Let’s say the possible eight years. That automatically means the North would hold power for 12 years consecutively, whereas a Southerner (Obasanjo) was there for only eight years. This scenario-painting I’m doing may look frivolous or even silly, but that is exactly the sort of complication we have in our hands now with the Jonathan Scenario: we never knew it could come to this! That was how “12 two-thirds” became a problem in 1979 because we did not do enough scenario-painting while writing the constitution. Essentially, power rotation is a PDP arrangement. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It was employed in 1999 to settle certain problems. With the annulment of the June 12 election, won by a Southerner, Nigeria was thrown into a prolonged political turmoil. The bad blood it generated was such that the political elite had to just reach an agreement that a Southerner, and a Yoruba in particular, must be elected president in 1999. Since then, we seem to have agreed that power should be changing hands between the North and the South on an eight-year basis. Also, the six geo-political zoning arrangement, which has become so popular and widely accepted today, is not constitutional. The idea of picking a candidate from the South and the running mate from the North is also not constitutional. All these are political arrangements that seem to have been accepted and appear to be helping us in our not-so-inspiring nation-building efforts.

All I have tried to do today is to tilt our thinking in the direction of the complexities that still lie ahead of us. The Jonathan Scenario is just one of the dozens that we will have to deal with one day. But you may want to ask: where do I stand? Should Jonathan become president in any eventuality? Or should he resign so that the political understanding that we seem to have established can be maintained? I’ll be honest with you – I can’t be bothered. I have seen enough in Nigeria to know that it is not somebody’s “tribe and tongue” that matters but what they have to offer. If a leader is doing well in office, Nigerians hardly discuss the sectional issues. Inasmuch as I keep talking about political balancing and political accommodation, I know in my heart of heart that what Nigeria needs is a leader that can make things happen – the real issue is not North or South, man or woman, Ijaw or Fulani. We know this very well. We only pretend not to know because of political sentiments. All said and done, I wish the president quick recovery – Jonathan Scenario or no Jonathan Scenario. That is the least I owe Yar’Adua as a fellow mortal being.

by Simon Kolawole

I don’t know much about Chief Andy Uba. He had always run his life away from the limelight, until he dived into the “murky waters” of politics. I have met him only once – at the THISDAY summit tagged “Nigeria Meets the World”, held in New York two years ago. He was in company with Alhaji Aliko Dangote. As I greeted Dangote and tried to “escape”, he grabbed my hand, turned to Uba and announced, mischievously, “Andy, this is Simon!” I had written very critical articles against Uba, so I was expecting some outpour of expletives. That was why I did not want to greet him in the first place. But, to my surprise, he greeted me warmly and asked, rather rhetorically: “Simon, what have I done to you now?” He came across to me as a soft-spoken, humble gentleman. All I did was smile. People I’ve criticised usually curse me when we meet. I was expecting a similar treatment from Uba, but he disappointed me.

In the event that you don’t know Andy Uba, an introduction will suit you. He was Special Assistant to ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo. He was the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April 14, 2007 election in Anambra State. He was declared winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). He was sworn in on May 29, 2007. But, in the shadows, there was a court case instituted by Governor Peter Obi to determine if he had served out his tenure in accordance with section 180(2)a of the 1999 Constitution. Obi had challenged the 2003 election in which Dr. Chris Ngige was declared winner by INEC. Obi pursued his case to a definitive conclusion and was sworn in as governor in March 2006 – almost three years after litigation. The next question was: would he serve just one year and leave office when the Constitution guaranteed him four years? Two weeks after Uba was sworn in, the Supreme Court returned Obi to the Government House with a judgment that his tenure would expire on March 17, 2010. The court berated INEC for conducting the April 14 election when it was well aware that there was no vacancy.

For whatever reason, Uba refused to give up. In a way, you would not blame him. He probably saw himself as a victim of circumstances. He probably felt a sense of injustice – a feeling that he was not responsible for INEC’s actions and errors. To everyone’s surprise, however, Uba went back to the Supreme Court, asking the apex court to reverse itself and restore him to office. The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself. I still do not know what gave Uba the confidence to try his luck. Several times he went back to the court but he eventually withdrew his plea and returned to a lower court, the Appeal Court, this time around to discuss the petition from the April 14, 2007 election. An elections petitions tribunal, basing its stand on the Supreme Court pronouncement on Obi’s tenure, had dismissed the petitions rising from Uba’s election on the ground that the election should not have held in the first place; in law, they say you cannot build something on nothing. The case ended up at the Appeal Court where the panel ruled the lower tribunal out of order. It said, curiously, that the tribunal should have listened to the petition on its merit, despite Supreme Court’s verdict. If you ask me, this was the beginning of Uba’s dilemma. The Appeal Court, for reasons best known to them, raised Uba’s hope and we are yet to get over it till today.

In the next few days, the Appeal Court sitting in Enugu is expected to give a “declarative verdict” on the status of Uba in line with its February 2008 judgment that the result of the April 2007 election was still “live” in spite of Supreme Court’s ruling on Obi’s tenure. Is Uba governor-in-waiting? Should he take over as soon as Obi’s tenure expires on March 17, 2010? Strong indications are that the Appeal Court will rule in Uba’s favour and spark off another round of controversy. A group recently placed an advert in the newspaper accusing Uba of inducing the judiciary to do his bidding. They said Uba had been promised the Anambra governorship as a “parting gift” by a top shot of the Appeal Court. A pro-Uba group has denied the allegation, describing it as nothing but blackmail. Whichever way you look at it, however, there is a buzz in Uba’s camp. The expectation is very high that he will be declared governor-in-waiting by the Appeal Court panel, which is said to be split 3-2 in Uba’s favour. This is quite intriguing.

Now let’s look at the matters arising. One, the Supreme Court has ruled in very clear terms that Obi’s tenure expires on March 17, 2010. That should be easy enough to understand by anybody. Two, the Constitution states clearly in Section 178(2) that an election to the office of the Governor of a State shall be held on a date not earlier than sixty days and not later than thirty days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office. In simple English, or arithmetic, 60 days to March 17 would be January 17, while 30 days would be April 17. INEC has fixed February 6 for the election, which is well within range. Where does April 14, 2007 come into the picture? The Constitution in front of me here does not say “not earlier than 37 months or later than 36 months”. Three, by constitutional provisions, the sitting governor is allowed to seek another term in office because he is entitled to a maximum of two. The incumbent will therefore be denied his right to contest. Four, since INEC has fixed February 6, 2010 for the governorship election in line with Supreme Court’s judgment, what happens to the winner of the election? Will he too become governor-in-waiting to assume office when Uba’s tenure expires on… I don’t even know what date that would be now.

Since feelers from the Appeal Court indicate that Uba is coasting home to victory, I think the Nigerian judiciary is in for a torrid time. The reputation it has won in this democratic dispensation will become food for the dogs. If the Appeal Court upturns the Constitution and Supreme Court’s pronouncement on this matter, I guess the logic will continue to haunt the justices for the rest of their lives. The honourable justices should also think of their names. The Anambra conundrum has claimed many victims in the judiciary, notably Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo, whose career was terminated in disgrace. Whether we like it or not, a good name is better than silver and gold, no matter what the modern man thinks.

If the Appeal Court goes ahead to upturn what the Supreme Court has said on Anambra State, of course the case will go back to the Supreme Court. Any argument that a governorship election petition ends at the Appeal Court will obviously not hold water, because this is ultimately a constitutional matter, not just an election petition. The final question will be: going by Section 178(2) of the 1999 Constitution, can an election be held 36 months to the expiration of the tenure of the incumbent? The clear answer is no. On what law was the April 2007 election based then? Can you build something on nothing? The answer is no. I have this funny feeling that if the Appeal Court justices allow themselves to be lured into upturning a Supreme Court judgment, the National Judicial Council (NJC) will eventually pounce on them. My gut feeling is that many of them will end their careers like Egbo-Egbo. “Egbo”, in Yoruba, means “wound”. They will nurse their wounds for life – if they stand constitutional logic on its head.

Bode George and the Way Forward

The conviction and jailing of Chief Bode George – and five others, let me quickly add – came to many Nigerians as a shock. Most of the people who called me were incredulous. “Are you sure Bode George has been jailed?” was one question I had to answer many times. Now, I don’t blame the Doubting Thomases. When was the last time a big politician was sentenced to jail and given a prisoner’s uniform for corruption? You have to go all the way back to the Muhammadu Buhari/Tunde Idiagbon era to get an answer to that. I’m talking of 1984-85 – some good 24 years ago. Those born then have graduated from the university and married and had children. Quite some history. Since then, those who get sentenced to jail are the guys who snatch handbags at Oshodi. The guys who steal the billions usually get national honours and police escorts. So Nigerians are entitled to scepticism.

Even as I write this, I (like many other Nigerians) don’t really believe George will serve his jail term. It’s very unNigerian for a big fish to be caught and served justice in large dosage. While I do not rejoice over the plight of George (many of the politicians who are celebrating his downfall are worse criminals), I am delighted with the judgment for several reasons. The symbolism should not be lost on us if we are to strengthen nation-building and facilitate Nigeria’s development. First, it is assumed, or believed, that no big politician will ever go to jail in Nigeria. This belief fuels impunity and despair. Impunity because politicians engage in bad behaviour knowing fully well that they will never be brought to justice. Despair because many Nigerians have given up hope of justice. They end up saying “Nigeria is finished” and never expect anything good to come out of their country. This judgment is therefore capable of sending a warning signal to politicians that they can actually go to jail.

Also, there’s a high possibility that the George judgment will have a positive effect on other judges across the country who may have also come to believe, like many Nigerians, that big politicians cannot go to jail. Now they know those guys can indeed go to jail. The judges, I believe, will henceforth be encouraged to slam the hammer on these guys. Until Peter Obi pursued his election petition to a logical conclusion, no governor had been removed from office by the judiciary. This must have discouraged many judges from giving big judgments. However, as soon as Obi won his case and was installed governor of Anambra State almost three years after the election, the other tribunals and courts took their cue from the case and began to take big decisions. I expect the Bode George judgment to have a similar effect on other judges who are handling political cases involving former governors and former ministers.

Three, I expect that President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua will not interfere in this case, although his party is talking tough (“It is not over yet,” the party’s scribe, Abubakar Baraje, has said). Indications so far are that Yar’Adua is ready to allow things to run on their own. When the Minister of Power, Lanre Babalola, moved against the big guys at the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), attempts were made to reach Yar’Adua to call off the action, especially as a top prince was involved, but he refused. The recent removal of Francis Atuche as MD of BankPHB was a shocker – Atuche was Yar’Adua’s banker. The Yar’Adua family is a major shareholder in BankPHB (the president declared this in his assets form). Yet Atuche and BankPHB were not spared the hammer. I therefore expect that the President will not make any underground moves to get George and co. off the hook. In which case, our institutions will have an opportunity to grow in strength. The judiciary as well as the anti-graft agencies will only gain from this. Anything short of this and the judgment by Justice Joseph Olubunmi Oyewole will just be another false dawn.