Tag: Democracy

  • Presidency berates Obasanjo over comment on democracy

    Presidency berates Obasanjo over comment on democracy

    The presidency has blamed former President Olusegun Obasanjo for the current state of democracy in Nigeria.

    The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, noted that the democracy the country currently practises dates back to direct inputs by Obasanjo when he led the country’s first as military Head of State from 1976 – 1979 and as civilian President from 1999 – 2007.

    “Obasanjo ought to know that he brought this thing into Nigeria. He was the one who made us adopt it in 1979. He must have seen it as expensive and unsuitable when he governed us for eight years and even wanted an extension for another four years.

    “So, the way he is sounding, it is like the man is getting wiser after leaving office,” Onanuga said.

    The Presidency’s response followed comments made by Obasanjo at the high-level consultation on Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa held at Green Resort Legacy, Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library, Abeokuta.

    Obasanjo had criticised Western democracy, suggesting it had not delivered good governance and development in Africa.

    He called for a reexamination and moderation of democracy to better suit African nations, citing the Western model’s disregard for African history and complexities.

    Onanuga added, “We were practicing the parliamentary democracy the British left for us. Then, the military struck in 1966. And when we were going to return to democracy, instead of going back to what we were practicing before, parliamentary democracy, which was not expensive, it was this same Obasanjo who accepted the recommendation of the constitutional assembly at that time that recommended this American-style democracy.”

    The Presidency criticised Obasanjo’s implementation of the presidential system, saying, “Obasanjo also knew that he copied this presidential system very wrongly. He copied the form and structure. But he didn’t copy the spirit of it.”

    “Something that should have been under him in 1999 to 2007, he even made attempts to modify the constitution”.

  • Why democracy is not working in Africa – Obasanjo

    Why democracy is not working in Africa – Obasanjo

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo on Monday in Abeokuta said democracy has not been working as a system of government in Africa because it was “forced” on the continent.

    Obasanjo stated this in his address at a high-level consultation on “Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy for Africa”.

    The former president said the Western style of democracy failed in Africa because it does not take into consideration the views of the majority of the people.

    Obasanjo described Western Liberal Democracy as a “government of a few people over all the people or population”.

    ”These few people are representatives of only some of the people and not full representatives of all the people.

    “Invariably, majority of the people were wittingly or unwittingly kept out. This is why we should have ‘Afro Democracy’ in place of Western Liberal Democracy.”

    Obasanjo said African countries have no business operating a system of government which they have no hands in its definition and design.

    “The weakness and failure of liberal democracy as it is practised stem from its history, content, context and its practice.

    “Once you move from all the people to representatives of the people, you start to encounter troubles and problems.

    “For those who define it as the rule of majority, should the minority be ignored, neglected and be excluded?

    “In short, we have a system of government in which we have no hands to define and design and we continue with it, even when we know that it is not working for us.

    “Those who brought it to us are now questioning the rightness of their invention, its deliverability and its relevance today without reform,” he said.

    Obasanjo explained that the essence of any system of government should be the welfare and well-being of the people.

    “Here, we must interrogate performance of democracy in the West —where it originated from — and with us the inheritors of what we are left with by our colonial powers.

    “We are here to stop being foolish and stupid. Can we look inward and outward to see what in our country, culture, tradition, practice and living over the years that we can learn from?

    “(Something) that we can adopt and adapt with practices everywhere for a changed system of government that will service our purpose better and deliver.

    “We have to think out of the box and after, act with our new thinking.

    “You are invited here to examine clinically the practice of liberal democracy, identify its shortcomings for our society and bring forth ideas and recommendations that can serve our purpose better,” he said.

    In his remarks, a former governor of Ekiti State, Kayode Fayemi, noted that liberal democracy in Africa was confronted with many challenges.

    Fayemi said the improvement of the welfare of the people remained important, saying that democracy faced challenges of delivery in Africa.

    “Non-delivery of development outcomes for the people must be adequately addressed so that democracy can deliver,” he said.

  • Nigerian Democracy and its deviants – By Chidi Amuta

    Nigerian Democracy and its deviants – By Chidi Amuta

    The off cycle governorship elections in the three states of Bayelsa, Imo and Kogi have come to a rowdy and contentious end. As is typical of all Nigerian elections in recent times, the electoral battlefront may have paused in those states. The scene will soon shift to the futility of mostly compromised courts and tribunals with the predictable outcomes . As elections go, most estimates have concluded that what took place last Saturday is basically a compressed edition of the contentious February 25th presidential election. All the footprints are complete. As it were, we have just witnessed a small parade of everything that is wrong with our fledgling democracy.

    Vote trading was on open display. Political retail traders were out at the polling stations brandishing bales of Naira notes and a few dollars to buy and sell votes as necessary. For hungry voters, it was simple demand and supply of ‘stomach infrastructure’ and its accompanying cash backup. EFCC operatives and other likeminded security agencies who wanted to appear busy reported that they confiscated a paltry N14 million (a little over US$12,000) in cash from the vote traders in all three states!

    Intimidation of election officials and sabotage plots were in abundant evidence as well. Somewhere in the creeks of Bayelsa, for instance, some INEC official was abducted and his voting materials confiscated by unknown hoodlums. He later reappeared to say that he had been released by his captors. End of drama!

    Violence and intimidation featured predictably as well. In Imo, some polling units became battlefronts with gun wielding persons firing shots in no particular direction to scare off voters and party agents in familiar bold armed robbery operations. Apparently, paid political thugs in the service of party chieftains found other uses for their weapons in the ensuing confusion.

    There were also reports of result falsification and tally tampering. In some local government areas in Kogi, results were reportedly ready before voting commenced!  Pre-completed INEC result sheets were on display. Even INEC later confessed that something on the scale of a ‘sabotage’ went wrong in Kogi and so ordered fresh elections in parts of the state for yesterday, Saturday the 18th of November.

    Not to talk of open displays of violent acts in full view of security agents. At the state collation centre in Imo, a big free for all fight erupted. The agent of one party was caught on video thoroughly beaten up, kicked and punched into a heap on the floor. Worse still, at the collation centre in Bayelsa, a party agent was killed in the excited brawl of clashing contested victories. Sporadic incidents of ballot snatching were similarly reported. In one instance in Kogi, some ballot snatcher was reportedly shot dead by zealous soldiers.

    A few familiar electoral curiosities emerged in the process of this election. In the whole of Imo state, for instance, it has been reported by some independent observers that there was hardly any electronic transmission or collation of results. It was mostly manual. Similarly, BVAS accreditation was by-passed in many places while manual accreditation was mostly the order of the day leading to reported cases of over voting for which some parties are headed for the tribunal to protest. Yet, as early as 10 am on Sunday, barely a day after polling, INEC announced the entire result for the state. An excited re-elected Hope Uzodinma took to the dance floor with his wife in the Owerri Government House to celebrate.

    As usual, INEC’s technology devices worked in fits and starts or not at all. In many places, it was reported by journalists and observers that the voter accreditation BVAS platform did not work. INEC resorted to manual accreditation or, reportedly, no accreditation in some places. The IREV uploading gimmick was hardly in evidence. Reportedly, only up to 50% of results in all three states had been uploaded on BVAS by Sunday night, 24 hours after balloting! Perhaps it is about time we asked INEC to totally eliminate its fiddling with technology and go completely manual and analogue.

    Sundry independent election observers have since issued reports full of  reservations and outright indictments of the conduct of the elections in all three states. As usual, INEC continues to carry a burden of lack lustre performance, incompetence and dodgy refereeing. YIAGA Africa, for instance, has issued a report that points out, among other failings, that INEC’s announced results for all three states include returns from polling units in local governments where no voting took place! INEC is being asked to explain the mystery of these phantom results. In a statement issued at 2pm on Monday, 13th November, the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room, opined that the failures witnessed in the February presidential elections repeated and even magnified themselves in this off cycle election. But so much for the parade and catalogue of bad things with Nigeria’s democracy.

    On the contrary, the fact that the elections in those states have taken place is a plus for Nigeria’s continuing attachment to democracy. It is also a plus that barely two days after the elections in the three states, all the results were announced. Furthermore, the degree of violence witnessed in all three states is still lower than what was feared given the backdrop of nationwide insecurity. Imo in particular had remained a hotbed of violent thuggery and suspected IPOB separatist insurgency. It was feared that pro-Biafra elements would outrightly prevent elections in significant segments of the state. The fact that there was hardly any IPOB related violence says something of previous security assessments and conclusions. To that extent, there would seem to be some improvement in the performance of the security agencies in protecting the elections as an important national democratic event.

    Yet we cannot ignore the more fundamental and dangerous signs that these elections have underlined for the future of democracy in Nigeria. In all three states, voter turnout was abysmally low. This trend is merely an intensification of what occurred in the February presidential elections which makes it all the more concerning. People who had better things to do just shunned the polling centres and went about their business. As in the presidential polls, only about 30% of registered voters showed up to vote. Less than 30 million of the registered 83 million voters nationwide actually cast their ballots for all presidential candidates in the 18 registered parties.

    For instance, President Bola Tinubu’s incumbency is on the strength of  less than 10% of registered voters. The matter of low voter turnout nevertheless deserves closer examination and deeper understanding if we are to sustain a tradition of democratic participation. It is a serious commentary on the prospects of democracy in the country. To that extent, we must seek explanations and seek for remedies.

    In the last decade, the spate of insecurity around the country has increased the risk involved in people going out to queue for long hours at polling stations where it has become hard to distinguish between party agents, hired thugs and plain dangerous criminals. On a few recent occasions, many who went out to vote have returned through hospital wards or come home with fractured skulls or broken ribs as a result of violent attacks by thugs. Ordinary people who have little or nothing to show for their previous exertions now weigh the risk to reward ratio of going out to vote and most prefer to stay home.

    Even for the habitual voters who go out because there is an instant reward in the form of cash or food items from vote buyers have also begun to measure the value of these rewards in an inflationary situation. Inflation has eroded the value of anticipated financial or material rewards to hapless poor voters.

    Even more frightening is the tendency for the ritual of voting to become a low class affair. It is often the case in high brow neighbourhoods that its is the domestic staff- gatemen, security guards, stewards, cleaners and janitors –who go to queue up for long hours to vote. As it were, the elite may have unconciously ceded their democratic rights to the lower classes.  The exception may only be during presidential elections when the stakes are elevated to a national level where larger interests come into contention.

    In general, the elite or middle class voters are usually reluctant to go out to queue in the sun for hours to vote for a governor or state legislator whose impact on his life is questionable. For this group, there is a growing feeling of disenchantment with the ritual of democracy in a society where cycles of democratic change hardly translate into positive change in living circumstances. This feeling of democratic futility and alienation of the electorate gradually spreading among all soclal classes and groups. This seems to be fuelling a growing new anti democratic consensus among the populace.

    The more dangerous implication of this growing sentiment is the gradual death of belief in governments at all levels in the country among the generality of ordinary citizens. Distrust in government easily translates into voter apathy and a breakdown of sense of civic obligation. The cynicism is widespread that government has become increasingly ineffectual in providing solutions to the common problems affecting the daily lives of the generality of people.

    There is a more frightful part to this alienation. Those aged 18 to 24 can be described as our ‘democracy generation’. They came of voting age after the 1999 return to democracy and so have not known any other form of political organization and expression than democracy. They ought to be the critical mass of our democracy vanguard but , alas, they are the ones mostly afflicted by cynicism and disillusionment about democracy and governance from most available evidence.

    The ‘death of government’ has gradually emerged as a recurrent theme in Nigerian popular discourse. Alongside this theme is widespread cynicism about democracy itself. People are now looking back at the experience of the last 24 years and wondering whether democracy has in fact improved their lot or merely enriched a minority of politicians, public office appointees and their associates. Increasingly, the rituals of periodic voting now looks more like a sham and a charade. There is a street wisdom that politicians only remember the people in four year cycles when they return in search of votes only to disappear into the cocoon of material comfort and privilege.

    The summation of it all is therefore a tragic deficit in citizen trust in the state and the efficacy of its institutions to protect or deliver on their responsibilities. Distrust on the state and its insitutions also amounts to a devaluation of the guardrails of democracy itself. Most Nigerians distrust INEC and its ability to conduct free and fair elections. Similarly, the security agencies are seen as being in the service of the rich and powerful instead of out to defend the national interest of peace, security and democracy.  In the same vein, the judiciary and the courts enjoy scant trust and respect in the minds of ordinary Nigerians.

    In order to salvage Nigerian’s democracy, we need to return to fundamentals. We cannot assume that the mere existence of institutions of state designed to serve democracy is enough to sustain a democratic culture. That is not enough. They have an inbuilt tendency to degrade and self destroy or be destroyed by ambitious politicians unless they are constantly surveiled by a vigilant civil society. We therefore need to return to the rubrics of democracy to see where Nigeria has derailed in the last 24 years and how and where our experience of democracy can be saved and improved upon.

    Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors How Democracies Die, drawing from the untidy experiences of America’s democracy under Donald Trump have provided some insight  into what could happen to even the most entrenched democracy when its guardrails and guideposts are systematically assaulted and threatened by political rascality.

    Democracy is not a self defending edifice. It is subject to sabotage and destruction if those who gain power from it are not held in check by the people and the existing constraints of democratic institutions.  In this regard, our broad conception of democracy remains that it is “a system of government with regular free and fair elections, in which all adult citizens have the right to vote and possess basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association”.

    In the best locations of liberal democracy such as the United States and Western Europe, the key elements that power democracy are well known and consistent. They include the primacy of the constitution, a national  creed that emphasizes freedom and equality, a robust middle class, a high level of wealth and education and a large and diversified private sector. These have remained the key drivers of democracy especially in the United States. These factors are also the key guarantors of the institutional guardrails of democracy in the country over the years. With these elements, it becomes axiomatic that the press would be free, that the judiciary would observe the rule of law to the letter and elections would be free, fair and accurately reflect the true wishes of the people as expressed in the way they vote.

    However, the passage of time does not necessarily  guarantee the perfection or even improvement of democracy. A democracy does not get better just because time has passed and the rituals have been observed repeatedly over time. On the contrary, even long established democracies can begin to decline with time if certain slips begin to occur as a result of the excesses of those democracy puts in power. This is when democracy begins to decline.

    The indicators of the decline of democracy are clearly recognizable in all societies. When politicians begin to treat opponents as enemies in war; when politicians intimidate the press; when freely elected politicians hector and openly insult opposing candidates and parties; when parties refuse to accept the results of valid elections or the political system begins to erode the integrity of courts. Worse still, when competing politicians show open distrust of the intelligence services or seek to subvert the constitutional mandate of the security services then all is not well.  When these anomalies overwhelm the polity, then democracy is fatally injured and desperately needs to be saved lest it takes down the state in its decay.

    In this descent into undemocratic ways, we can also notice increasing  authoritarianism in component states and among key political actors.  In extreme cases, it  becomes possible for politicians to begin redrawing  constituency boundaries or even attempt to rewrite election laws and rules governing voting rights.

    In the run up to the 2019 elections in the United States, nearly all these threats to democracy were on full display under Donald Trump. Even now as Trump stages a comeback to the White House, he carries with him these anti-democratic tendencies hence the 2024 US presidential election is a battle for the life of democracy in its best show place.

    In Nigeria, the destruction of democracy is in progress. INEC is in self destructive rot. Public confidence in the courts up to the Supreme Court has been eroded by corruption and incumbency compromise. Politicians are in fierce vicious factional fights at elections as in warfare. Political contestants now recruit and arm private armies to wage their political wars. The rhetoric of our political contests drips in abuse, hate and divisiveness. Lately, we have seen the rise and emergence of political emperors and apprentice authoritarians like Nyesom Wike.

    Most tragically, our election victories as exemplified by the February presidential elections are now more of power grabs for state capture. Power cartels overrun the political space and occupy the vantage posts of state power to swell private vaults to the exclusion of rival factions and elites.

    In general, a democracy can be salvaged if its crisis is merely institutional decay. But when a democracy is imperiled by the very politicians whom it puts in power, there is real mortal danger.

  • Fractured opposition, fragile democracy – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    Fractured opposition, fragile democracy – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    The Supreme Court verdicts finally put to rest all the agitations around the outcomes of the 2023 presidential elections, and the All Progressive Congress, APC, pops champagne and celebrates over the presumed landmark judgement while the opposition grips the jurists by the jugular of being undertakers of democracy.

    From whatever prism one looks at the judgment, presidential electoral jurisprudence became enriched rightly or wrongly because it dealt with some pesky issues, however contentious they were, stemming future agitations.

    However, since the first republic, the country has not had the fortunes or misfortune of having the victory of a declared winner in the presidential race, upturned by the Supreme Court either because the jurists were complicit and connived with the presumed winners as alleged by some, or the oppositions have not lived up to the billings of proving their cases beyond all reasonable doubts.

    After all the drama in the courts, some few discerning minds contemplated if the opposition was strategic in their pursuit to uproot the incumbent right from the word go, and for career politicians and opposition with serial losses, it was expected the battle should have long started before the primaries with well-coordinated infiltration of the incumbent camps, extensive background checks on prospective candidates that will emerge, and plant mercenaries like what the ruling party did in the opposition camps, do further damages with hard facts during the campaigns running up to the polls and collate an irrefutable body of evidence in preparation for the Tribunal however what did we get, an opposition fixated on caricaturing the ruling party aspirant on health grounds and poor management of presumed certificate infractions. The entire process and outcomes question their readiness and bid to wrestle power from the incumbent.

    Can democracy truly thrive with feeble, uncoordinated and tactless opposition?   Unequivocally, the vibrancy of the opposition is the barometer or a true reflection of the health of any sound democracy and its absence, sponsors leadership failure, and society collapse-  hence,  democracy without consistent, persistent, rugged and engagement of the opposition is the beginning of dictatorialism and the emergence of a democratic monarch, especially in the African milieu.

    The opposition during the first republic was very vibrant and kept the political space fully charged and sometimes spilling into unnecessary violence, but there was an opposition that bestrode the political landscape.

    At the height of its glory or infamy, the handlers of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, boasted the party would rule the country for 60 years uninterrupted, and such assertion was based on the arrogance of success and driven by the sheer grip of incumbency but unfortunately encumbered with endless policy missteps and massive corruption spiralling into a loss of faith by the people.

    Consequences for such gambling are usually not fetched because when incumbency crosses the Rubicon, any novice can wrestle power and coast to victory. These were simply the playbook strategy of the ruling party while still in opposition. A Buhari could never have become the president of Nigeria if he had stuck to his gun as the emperor of Congress for Progressive Change, CPC. Under that party flag, he wept after serial defeat until the opposition regrouped, reset and trounced the PDP mercilessly.

    Pre-2015 elections, the PDP was fractured and infiltrated, wounded, and conspiracy was the name of the game as religious, ethnic and regional proclivities wrecked the party’s boat – the masterstroke was the fusion of opposition parties driven by a common goal to boot out the incumbent by all means necessary, and the plotters of that trajectory, see all as fair. That was how to be an opposition!

    It throws up some learning curves in the coffee book of President Tinubu and on the tortuous sojourn of how an opposition with extremely remote chances can embarrass the incumbent and dominate the political space. If the declaration of President Tinubu about becoming the president of Nigeria as a lifetime ambition was anything to go by, and his eventual success in his pursuit, then the man must be commended as one of the most resourceful political strategists from the South West, if not for our time.

    Since he stormed the political landscape in 1999, he patiently nursed that ambition like a patient vulture waiting for its time, never shifted grounds as opposition but built bridges across and, during some crucial moments, provided shelter for those regarded as outcasts,  hence, among his contemporaries, he may be one of the few politicians who never jumped ship irrespective of the political atmosphere or dwindling fortunes – providing a body of knowledge of how to stay focused, maintain grit and be single-eyed to a vision.

    The nation was ready for a change of government in the February 2023 presidential election – but the chief opposition had a blurred view of the bigger picture and egos imprisoned reasoning if not what business does an Iyorchia Ayu, the party chairman, had not sacrificed his office for the greater good of the party if stooping down to conquer was anything to go by.

    The entire party went on an ego trip to prove what point precisely, losing sight of the prevailing mood that it was time for the incumbent to self-implode because it was in a big mess, a condition precedent for a total shipwreck.

    The sitting president was against the candidacy of Asiwaju, the party chairman was not pretentious about it, and the Senate President drafted into the plot for purely ethnic manoeuvring. The CBN governor’s naira redesigned policy was merely doing the bidding of his paymaster and, President Buhari destroyed the economy and was worse than  where it was before the 2015 elections, so Nigerians were ready to answer the big question for a change but, the PDP, the face of opposition as it were, came to the rings without its boxing gloves – leaving a newly no-structure Labour Party flagging a Peter Obi with little national relevance as the toast of Nigerians within a few months of the election – what a tragedy for our brand of opposition.

    So, when Atiku Abubakar told the leadership of Inter Party Advisory Council, IPAC, yesterday that the opposition should regroup and form a synergy to unseat the incumbent, it came as a call in the right direction because if you cannot defeat a Tinubu outside Aso Rock who fought the tide of his party against him, you may not be able to unseat him as a sitting president with haphazard, egocentric, greed-driven and fractured opposition and after all, the man may court over to himself half of the strategic membership of the opposition before the expiration of four years because when Tinubu was through with Lagos, the opposition went extinct, he knows the game and plays it with uncanny mastery.

    So, if the opposition goes into silent mode and hopes to resurface three and half years later to disturb our peace, sadly, democracy will remain fragile. As usual, the opposition is currently nursing the pains of defeat, so committing to giving the incumbent a run for their money by promising to shadow the ruling party activities for the next four years is a mere fallacy because if you have lived long enough in this country, you will understand that after the docility of followership, the porosity of the opposition is another bane of democratic development.

    Nigerians want to see virile opposition, know what a shadow cabinet looks like, and the key actors remaining persistent in the political space for the next three years reasonably interrogating all the policies and projects of the ruling party. The masses crave the opposition to sponsor investigative inquiries into the business of governance and expose any form of infractions, corruption and dislocation of our collective patrimony, and as a matter of duty, must provide credible alternatives to critical national issues with clear roadmaps and solutions – not fair-weather opposition that has been the norm and the nation has suffered untold calamities.

    In the next six months, can the present opposition provide the kind of leadership Nigerians hope for? And, it is worth the mention, Your Excellency, the Waziri Adamawa, President Tinubu cannot kill the opposition, but, historically, the opposition self-sedate almost to a coma and hurriedly resurfaced a few months before the next election and hopes for a landslide.

    Are the key players in the opposition ready to sacrifice their ambitions if it takes that to unseat the incumbents? Is the opposition willing to ignore personal aggrandizement and party gains to rescue democracy if they feel it is captured or imprisoned by the incumbents? Before APC in this fourth republic, what we have seen as the opposition was a bunch of jokers in a merry-go-round that promptly fused into the whims and caprices of the ruling party, and we hope a repeat is not looming.

    It behoves the leadership of the opposition parties to truly approximate the ramifications of political opposition and spare us the charade of resurfacing every four years without pounding the pavement for the desired results.

    The opposition should sincerely regroup and reset because President Tinubu is not a non-performer and does not take captives.

  • No Hope for democracy – By Owei Lakemfa

    No Hope for democracy – By Owei Lakemfa

    The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC,  Joe Ajaero, was on Wednesday, November 1, battered  in Owerri, Imo State  by armed hoodlums, some in security uniform. He was about addressing a rally of unarmed workers when the group was set upon by the assailants who came in several vehicles.

    Some of the labour leaders and workers sustained various degrees of injuries and the attackers also disposed their victims of various sums of money, phones and other personal belongings.

    Apart from Ajaero being the NLC President, the largest labour organisation on the continent, as a human being, the severity of the attack on him deserves empathy; no human ought to be subjected to such an attack in which he could easily have lost his life.

    While there are disputes about the identity of the attackers which the state government claimed are aggrieved workers but the NLC says are thugs of the government aided by the police, the above facts on the actual attack, are indisputable.

    What any human being ought to feel or express, is empathy with the victims of the attack. Tragically, what came from the Imo State Government under whose jurisdiction the crime was committed, was a display of glee.

    Hope Uzodimma, the State Governor who should be concerned that such daylight savagery took place in a state he claims to be the chief security officer, showed neither sympathy nor concern. Rather, at the Aso Rock Presidential Villa where he had gone to receive a flag from President Bola Tinubu as the gubernatorial candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, he sought to rationalise, if not justify, the attack.

    He said: “What has happened in this ugly coincidence is that the National President of the Nigeria Labour Congress is from Imo State and has not been able to demarcate the difference between being a national leader of an organisation and an interested party in local politics.” Assuming, without conceding that Uzodimma’s claim is correct, what is criminal in the national leader of an organisation being interested in local politics, especially when he is an indigene of the state? If truly Ajaero is interested in the local politics of the state, is the penalty death sentence by jungle justice as the attackers tried to do?

    Uzodimma went on: “I understand the sensitivity of this event (strike). But I want you people to be careful because there is an attempt to mix up partisan politics or an attempt to blackmail my government.”  If indeed, there is “an attempt to mix up partisan politics” with the denial of  workers rights in the state, what is the crime in it? Who says at the approach of elections, workers’ rights must be buried and resuscitated only after elections?

    If the claims of the governor is that he is not owing salaries and had surpassed workers expectations, why is he jittery that workers issues are being amplified? If he were telling the truth, he should be happy as this should fetch him more votes. If, as he claims, there is an attempt to blackmail what he calls “my government”, what he needed to do was not to take the law into his hands or justify lawlessness, but to report this to the appropriate security agency for investigation.

    Uzodimma then proceeded to make a most ridiculous assertion: that the NLC State Council disagreed with the national body and: “In the process, they decided to dissolve them to put in a caretaker. Of course, I’m the Chief Security Officer and I have a responsibility to intervene. I encourage the national leadership not to dissolve a management team that their tenure has not expired, and that was what they did.”

    Wow! Uzodimma is not a member of a trade union, but as the Chief Security Officer of the state he decided to intervene in the internal affairs of an independent labour centre whose legitimacy and independence derives from Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution which he swore as governor to uphold! What law or constitutional provision gives the governor of a state powers to intervene in the internal governance of a trade union or labour centre?

    If you carefully reflect on Uzodimma’s claim of an alleged split in the labour leadership, you will realise that it is an unimaginative and poorly scripted attempt to claim that the vicious attack was an internal one by local Imo State workers against their national leaders.

    It is tragic that Uzodimma was allowed to use hallowed halls of the country’s Presidential Villa to spew such nonsense. His clear acts in Imo State endangers democracy in the country. If he were to belong to the opposition, he might have been accused of attempting to bring down the Federal Government.  But since he belongs to the ruling APC, his principals must have an agenda to deny the country democracy. So, who exactly is Uzodimma; what is his agenda and who is he working for? Certainly not the Nigerian people.

    Elections in the state are due for this weekend, November 11. Ordinarily, Uzodimma would have been punished at the polls, but unfortunately, the votes may not count. They did not count four years ago, when Uzodimma came fourth. I am certain they will not count now. Tragically, while our entire democratic structure is endangered by people like Uzodimma, the rest of us seem to be mere onlookers.

    A main part of the unfolding tragedy is the misuse of the Nigeria Police Force, NPF. It is a major instrument in the hands of anti-democratic elements like Uzodimma.

    In the savagery we witnessed against the labour leaders, the NLC accused the police of being the instrument of perpetration.

    The police however claimed it intervened just “to ensure the protection of his (Ajaero’s) life that he was not lynched in the scuffle that followed”. Is it not interesting that the labour leaders could not distinguish between their attackers and the police and would accuse the latter of the unlawful arrest of their leader?

    The Imo State Police Command under Commissioner Mohammed Ahmed Barde also claimed that the attack was a result of “scuffles and heated arguments” during the strike planning meeting. This of course is false; there could have been no disagreements at a meeting that had not commenced.

    The police also said there is a court order barring the proposed NLC strike. This to me is trying to justify the attack. It is not in the place of thugs or the police to physically attack persons suspected of an intention to disobey a court order.

    If we were to continue in the path of executive lawlessness as displayed in Imo State, there will be no hope for democracy in Nigeria.

  • Electoral tribunal verdicts and the future of democracy – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    Electoral tribunal verdicts and the future of democracy – By Dave Baro-Thomas

    By Dave Baro-Thomas

    The palpable fear arising from the declaration of winners in the 2023 general elections as announced by the electoral umpire, INEC, the subsequent counsel for losers to go to court, and the outcomes from the courts today are documentary evidence that the Nigerian brand of democracy falls short of the spirit and content that drives democracy in saner climes.

    The sheer pretence, connivance and dearth of political will to interrogate the fundamental elements that skew our democratic experimentations since the first republic and the worsening outcomes since the fourth republic- posit nothing but a nation at home with ignominy, and until this shammed democracy is subjected to the acid test and grows organically vis-a-vis respect for its tenants, the business of governance is just a circus in Nigeria.

    One of the fall-outs of the recent elections in the country is the coinage- You can go to court and All eyes on the Judiciary- these crept into our political lexicon like wildfire, triggering inconceivable interpretations that stretch from the intellectual to the absurd – and at this juncture, one cannot help but reflect deeply on that aphorism: the law is an ass, or is it that the law is an axe, with the kinds of verdicts emanating from the electoral tribunals across the country.

    Before these judgements, expectations were intense, and very few sat on the fence- the ruling party boasted it had no case to answer, while the opposition was resolute that the evidence put on the table before the jurists would change the face of jurisprudence and birth new precedence that would enshrine and grow the much-desired democratic culture and ethos in the country.

    It appeared the opposition did a fantastic job with their post-election campaign’s theme of eyes on the Judiciary- these are not good times to be a judge adjudicating electoral matters because the judges were also on trial like never in the annals of our immediate history.

    All eyes on the Judiciary took a life of its own and dominated our national consciousness such that it deserves to pass as the phrase of the year because never in the history of this nation has this arm of government brought to the cleaners and public ridicule. But why has t it suffered this magnitude of disrepute, one wonders, and is the judicial arm an equal arm of government or a mere errand boy for the executive in the context of the doctrine of separation of power?

    So far, the tribunals have invalidated some victories at the State Houses, National Assembly, NASS, and out of the 18 gubernatorial electoral cases adjudicated, two sitting governors are red-carded, but matters are proceeding to the Supreme Court. In all of these, there seems to be this air of discontentment and demand for more blood on the dance floor of Nigerian politics, and the angst in the atmosphere is palpable, demanding the head of the judicial arm be dragged to the guillotine.

    From the first republic, the legendary Chief Obafemi Awolowo challenged the outcomes of the elections till the 1983 presidential election, which was won again for the second time by Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the NPN and that election branded the mother of fraud, yet the Supreme Court held it legit with only Justice Kayode Esho being the dissenting voice on 26 September 1979 – the verdict for the first tenure. Since the fourth republic, all presidential election disputations have gone up to the Supreme Court except Goodluck Jonathan, who conceded to General Buhari before the final whistle.

    The elections that brought Umaru Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan, Mohammed Buhari, and now Bola Tinubu are all alleged to be fraughted with irregularities on a massive scale, but at all points (while we wait for this present case), the Supreme Court cleared and legitimatized those victories.

    Fundamentally, something is wrong somewhere because most of the judgements do not reflect the moods and realities on the ground, and again, legal experts are shouting from the mountaintop that the law is not emotionally driven, it thrives on hard-core evidence, and where there is none or not sufficiently proven, mere articulations and excellence of speech are merely playing to the gallery and exciting the uninitiated in the temple of justice. Some believe that judges should be discretional, but medical doctors must follow the rules, or else the patient dies, if you do not get it, forget about it.

    So, here we are as a people, confronted with the same post-election tribunal disorder stress and many are hoping that the Supreme Court will contradict the appellate courts, which has not happened in our lifetime and may likely not happen because it is either the legal teams of the oppositions/losers have not broken the code or organize their evidence beyond all reasonable doubts, otherwise, there is more to Presidential election verdict Nigerians are not aware of.

    So, the problems with the outcomes from the courts are endemic and self-inflicted by our collective docility and the once-in-four-years placards carrying and mouthy agitations.  As it is today, the judicial arm is a mere tool in the hands of any ruling government to frustrate the development of democracy in Nigeria, and it did not start with Asiwaju Tinubu and will not end with him even when the CJN was in the news shouting that this arm is not a toothless bulldog, but it seems they like bones too much.

    Why should the Chief Justice of the Federation, CJN, be at the beck and call of Mr. President, and the State Chief Judges be the errand boys of the Governors? Should their budget be tied to the executive, and is immunity the sole preserve of only the President, Governors and Deputy Governors in a country like Nigeria, we expect any form of checks and balances where other arms of government are being hounded, harassed, embarrassed and thrown out by the executives because of control of state resources, and even at the last dispensation, members of the National Assembly voted against immunity for the Senate President and the Speaker.

    The judicial autonomy is a mirage in our democracy, even when it was enshrined in the constitution but breached in practice, so their financial freedom and welfare remain crucial to the development of democracy in Nigeria, and this should be on first line charge from the national budget, but resisted by the executive for clear-cut reasons – CONTROL!

    The French philosopher Baron Montesquieu will turn in his grave when he sees what has become of the doctrine of the separation of power in Nigeria, and we can put all our eyes on the justices or judges till thy Kingdom come, he who pays the piper dictates the drumbeats, and he who keeps the purse can also transmute into a Judas to keep our brand of democracy, crippled and worthless.

    The beauty of any democracy is the rule of law, but the custodians of such ideal that is the judicial arm, are glorified errand boys, broken, insulted, disparaged and incapacitated by the deliberate acts of the other organs, then it is a long walk to freedom as Nelson Mandela mused.

    We must rise to the occasion to demand absolute immunity for the Chief Justice of the Federal and States Chief Judges and total financial autonomy for this bastion arm of government – the Judiciary. Otherwise, let us remain with this democrazy (the demonstration of craze) and live with whatever verdicts coming from the courts!

  • Democracy’s broken promises – By Hope Eghagha

    Democracy’s broken promises – By Hope Eghagha

    The average Nigerian or African believes that democracy’s promises to the people have been broken. Hunger, the prevalence of official corruption, the opulent lives of government elite, and collapse of institutions testify to this belief. Participation in the process of producing elected officials is severely compromised. The institutions which ought to safeguard democracy are feeble, weak, and compromised. Justice can be bought. No one cares for the poor. There is disenchantment with the antics of the small click of powerholders across the country.

    In theory, democracy promised and promises equal access to the ballot along with the power of the ballot to change the fortunes of a country or an unpopular government. But Eric Li argues that liberal democracy is failing because so many ‘countries face severe problems: persistent inequality, political corruption, collapse of social cohesion, lack of trust in government and elite institutions, and incompetent government’. Ethnic and cultural nationalism also pose a threat to democracy as envisaged by the proponents of that doctrine. It is reasonable to argue that democracy did not reckon with the complexities of nationhood in Africa when it was shoved down our throats at independence. Events in the Congo, Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin Republic, Gabon, Cameroun, Uganda, and a couple of other countries show that we must rethink democracy. Can we say that the current beneficiaries of our democratic experiment democrats? Is democracy simply concerned with the power or lack of power of the ballot box?

    It has been argued that the big arguments about the failure of liberal democracy is not applicable to African nations, and that what exists on the continent is pseudo-democracy because we do not have institutions that can carry the burdens of liberal democracy. Without an independent judiciary, and a vibrant press what hope do we have to practice democracy as envisaged by its proponents? Why has the vibrant media in Nigeria disappeared? What, I may ask is the alternative to what we currently practice in most African countries which routinely announce general elections that produce dubious results?

    If separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a system of checks and balances between the different arms of government, a multiparty system, existence of viable political parties, transition from one government to another through the ballot box are the hallmarks of democracy, no one can beat their chest in loud proclamation that the experiment has been a successful one. We have been witnesses to arm-twisting of the judiciary, corruption, acquiescence under severe threats. We have also witnessed attempts to alter the Constitution of some countries to favour tenure elongation. Add to this the use of state security and apparatuses to threaten or exterminate the opposition, and the entrenchment of an elite that is not accountable to the electorate. The so-called Fourth Estate of the Realm in most African countries have become an extension of State House because their publishers are beholden to government for survival. In Nigeria, for example, where are the West African Pilots, or original versions of most of the independent newspaper houses in Nigeria?

    Democracy also promised the creation of an egalitarian society where all rights are guaranteed. By stating that democracy is a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’, democracy enunciated full participation of the people in shaping the course of history by establishing a good government. In practice, the experience of African nations has been a negation of these ideals. The resurgence of military coups on the continent is a direct consequence of the failure of liberal democracy.

    It is in the abysmal failure to combat poverty and build a pro-people infrastructure that most so-called democratically elected governments in African have failed the people. Indeed, the big question is: have these governments been genuinely elected by the people? What is the level of participation by the people? Do they so-called elected officials really receive the mandate of the people? What can we say is the acceptable percentage of mass participation to guarantee acceptability and legitimacy? Why is it acceptable for the electorate to be ignored until the next election cycle? What accounts for that disconnect between the elected officials and the people. Some sixty odd years after independence?

    Ethnic and primordial loyalties are still rated higher in the scale of things than competence, skill, and the nation has suffered for it. There is a deep disregard for the ordinary people of the continent. A big will exists between office holders and the mass of people. Local governments are created for development. But they have been turned into avenues for personal development. Local office holders are not close to the people. They avoid the people. They cannot tar roads. They cannot maintain hospitals. They cannot provide potable water. They cannot run primary schools located in their domain. In times of crisis, they have little or nothing to offer because the big men in the capital city have seized all funds.

    The central and state governments decide on what the people want without consulting them. Government ought to be for the people. If the people have no confidence in the government, they should be able to dissolve the government. This is only possible through the ballot box. The ballot is the symbol of the power of the people. If the rulers subvert the will of the people by massively rigging elections, the people are not obliged to obey and respect the impostors in power.

    Democracy does not put food on the table. Democracy ought to respect the will of the people. We cannot say with any certainty that our romance with return to civil rule in 1999 has respected the will of the people. It has always been ‘them’ and ‘us! It is this big gulf that makes the rumbling in some African countries a reality. And the rest of the continent is watching. If there is no change in attitude, the ugly spirit of the 1960s will return in a more furious and debilitating manner. Of that day we must beware!

  • Coup: Africa needs to ”rejig” its democracy – Jonathan

    Coup: Africa needs to ”rejig” its democracy – Jonathan

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan has said that the current spate where civil governments are being overthrown across the African continent shows that democracy needs to be ”rejigged” and put in a proper direction.

    Jonathan made this known during a Democracy Dialogue 2023 organised by the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation (GJF) with theme: “Breaking New Grounds In The Democracy Development Nexus in Africa” in  Yenagoa.

    The former Nigerian leader expressed worry that in recent years, democracy in Africa continent has caused serious crisis, including the challenges of poverty and unemployment, which he said has created a crisis of trust in the hearts of the citizens.

    ”Leadership is supposed to work to ensure that democracy is translated to economic well-being, explaining that democracy should be able to encourage development.

    ”Recently, we have experienced jubilations heralding the overthrown of civilian administrations in Africa, people jubilating military overthrowing civil administrations, such victory songs will not last long, but it shows thar Africa needs to rejig her democracy.

    “In recent years, democracy in the continent has caused serious crisis, the challenges of poverty and unemployment has created a crisis of trust in the hearts of of our citizens.

    “As leaders, we have the responsibilities to ensure that democracy endures by adhering to the the rules of law, respecting the rights of the people, strengthening public institutions, ensuring that we implement policies that will impact positively on the lives of our people,” he said.

    Jonathan said that the annual democracy dialogue is an initiative of the GJF which brings together stakeholders across Africa to critically examine the issue of democracy, interrogate the practice in Africa, and make suggestions where necessary.

    He said:”that is whywe  selected people from across Africa that have experience on such issues, the dialogue does not target any nation, the focus is to mobilize effective communication to remind and set agenda for the political development of the continent.

    “I must sincerely appreciate the enthusiasm of the people of Bayelsa and other Nigerians for their contributions for the success of this event.

    ”Your presence is the demonstration of your faith in our democracy and your determination to make contribution to proffer workable solution to the challenges of leadership in African continent,” he said.

    Also speaking, the Olu of Warri, Ogiame Atuwatse who was the royal father of the day during the dialogue, urged those who ”carry symbols of authority, be it crown or constitutional seal to always carry the people they govern along in their actions and policies”.

    Prof Patrick Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (June–September 1960)  delivered an address on the topic: “Making Democracy Work in Africa”, while other prominent African leaders, including Dr Omar Alieu Touray, President of ECOWAS Commission will also speak during the panel discussion.

    NAN reports that Africa has experienced seven coups since August 2020.

    These are in Niger, on July 26, the military announced that they had overthrown President Mohamed Bazoum. General Abdourahamane Tiani becomes the new strongman of the country and on Aug. 30 a coup d’état occurred in Gabon shortly after the announcement that incumbent president Ali Bongo had won the general election held on Aug. 26.

    Others are Burkina Faso, : President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré was ousted from power by the military on Jan. 24, 2022 and in Sudan on Oct. 25, 2021, Guinea on Sept. 5, 2021 and Mali: two coups in nine months.

    On Aug. 18, 2020, President Ibrahim Keïta was overthrown by the military, a transitional government was formed in October.

  • Tinubu tasks U.S. on defence of democracy as Biden sends invite for discussion

    Tinubu tasks U.S. on defence of democracy as Biden sends invite for discussion

    President Bola Tinubu has tasked the U.S. to collaborate with African countries in defending its democracies against anti-democratic forces within and outside the continent in order to improve on its peoples living standard.

    Ajuri Ngelale, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, in a statement, disclosed that the president said this when he received the U.S. Presidential envoy and Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Molly Phee, in Abuja on Saturday.

    He said that the American-backed development finance and multilateral institutions required comprehensive reforms to meet the developmental requirements of younger democracies in Africa, which operate in authoritarian-crowded environments.

    He said that this must be done with vigour as the institutions designed policies to support war-torn Europe after World War II, adding that this would meet the legitimate yearnings of Africans of using local solutions for its challenges.

    “Yes, the private sector will lead the way within an enabling environment we create for them, but the U.S. Government must be innovative in its thinking and systematically create incentives for U.S. industrial investment in Nigeria.

    ‘’Under my leadership, Nigeria stands ready to address their specific regulatory, tax and environmental concerns. I am determined to create prosperity for all Nigerian families,” the President said.

    Tinubu said that the crisis in Niger Republic would not deter him from concluding his economic reform programme for the benefit of Nigerians, adding that he would only advance the interest of Nigerian in his approach toward ECOWAS’ handling of the regional standoff.

    “We are deep in our attempts to peacefully settle the issue in Niger by leveraging on our diplomatic tools. I continue to hold ECOWAS back, despite its readiness for all options, in order to exhaust all other remedial mechanisms.

    ‘’War is not ideal for my economic reforms, nor for the region, but the defence of democracy is sacrosanct. The ECOWAS consensus is that we will not allow anyone to insincerely buy time,” Tinubu, who is the ECOWAS Chairman, said.

    Pledging its support for the position of ECOWAS, the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy, expressed the high regard the U.S. Administration has for the leadership of Tinubu as the Chairman of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government.

    She extended an exclusive invitation from U.S. President Joe Biden to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City to advance discussions further in late September.

    “We know there is more we can do to incentivize large-scale American investment in Nigeria and we are committed to working closely with you to achieve that, as part of efforts to strengthen the Nigerian and the regional economy.

    ‘’We appreciate your willingness to create an enabling environment for that. President Joe Biden is asking to meet with you on the sidelines of UNGA, and you are the only African leader he has requested to meet. It is a mark of his high regard for your leadership,” she said.

  • Military better under democracy – DHQ

    Military better under democracy – DHQ

    The Defence Headquarters (DHQ) says the call for the military to interfere in the nation’s democracy is highly unpatriotic and wicked.

    A statement by the Director Defence Information, Brig.-Gen. Tukur Gusau on Friday in Abuja, said it was an attempt by unpatriotic elements to distract the military from performing its constitutional responsibilities.

    Gusau said the DHQ frowned at the report being circulated online about welfare issues in the Armed Forces of Nigeria.

    He said the leadership of the armed forces has given priority to welfare of its personnel and will continue to do so.

    “The military hierarchy detests any attempt by any individual or group to instigate the law abiding military to embark on any unconstitutional change of government in the country.

    “We wish to state unequivocally that the military is happy and better under democracy and will not get involved in any act to sabotage the hard-earned democracy in our  country.

    “The armed forces under the leadership of Gen. Christopher Musa is determined to ensure its complete subordination to constitutional authority under President Bola Tinubu.

    “We will not be distracted from these roles that are well defined in the 1999 constitution (as amended),” he said.