Senator Ahmed Muktar Aruwa served? two terms at the Senate and was the Kaduna State governorship candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) in the last general elections. In this interview with ISAIAH BENJAMIN he says it was President Goodluck Jonathan’s predecessor that initiated the controversial single term tenure for political executives. He also speaks on other national issues, including? the Boko Haram challenge. Excerpts.
Is the six-year single term proposal a welcome development?
From my background while in the Senate as the number one anti-third term senator, you may be surprised to know that I? am involved in this six-year single term. It is not a new subject; it is a subject that has been debated at the committee levels thoroughly and given what we know about the experience of re-election of either a president? or a governor and the amount of public funds spent to return a sitting president or governor to the office, you will be the first to kick out two tenures, because if you look at the tenure itself from the proper perspective of governance, it is only one effective year that they work. For any new government that comes in, it takes a minimum of 18 months to begin to understand the office they inherited.
It takes them 18 good months to know the direction, and another 18 months to settle down to work then the issue of election begins two years to the time. So, essentially the governor or the president only works for one year because it takes one year and half to try to understand the system and another to position himself for re-election.
What I found wrong with this issue now as it is being brought in without sufficient consultations and explanations to the citizens as? to why this is necessary; otherwise it is a very welcome idea. This idea came from (late President) Yar’Adua himself and he did not include himself as a beneficiary. His concern was how re-election can be stopped because of the huge amount spent.? So a governor or president must have his programmes that he knows he can execute and quit, and where the project was not completed, whoever takes over will complete it provided it is in the best interest of the people or the state, as the case may be, before adding his own but in all cases of six-year one term, there is no question of re-election. If you look at this compared to what people are going through to get re-elected, it will solve a lot of problems. Apart from treasury, these sit-tight ideas of governors and do-or-die election would all be eliminated. I don’t know why this matter was not tabled before Nigerians. When we agreed on this, we all signed the report but it was removed before the main report was given to the Justice Uwais panel.? It was the position of government and registered political parties in the country, with the exception of Action Congree (AC)? then; now Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) made that decision. It was not Jonathan’s decision, but it was his responsibility to present it. It was not him that brought the idea: we debated it thoroughly and looked at all sides of the coins and we came to the conclusion that it will reduce a lot of political tension, especially at election and the do-or-die approach where the police and army were used to get somebody returned to office. All that will be eliminated, but I urge Nigerians to think and dialogue? on it, not just what is happening now, but the future. It is not a matter we should just wave off, but a serious matter that requires all to consider.
Don’t you think the issue of single term is coming too early, especially now that there are other challenging issues – like the security and unemployment?
This all part of it. There is no issue of governance that is less important than the other; you can only prioritise – they are all equally important. Without funding, providing security will be a mirage. If he can bring about a system acceptable to all, at least peace and meeting of mind would have been established, then you move to the next one. You cannot leave one because it is less important; they are all equally important. Each has his own way that it affects the citizens of the country. This idea of? six years one term came about at the same time the idea of bringing about the election offences commission, which was defeated at the Senate narrowly. I don’t know why they separated the Bill because they were together. The same senators who defeated that Bill? are now regretting that made a mistake because if we have a commission that deals with electoral offences like we have in the economic crimes commission, a lot of the perpetrators of the last elections would have been in jail today, because it was all provided? step-by-step. What constitutes an offence and many of them have committed an offence against the Election Offences Commission Act, but today they are all free because that commission is not in place. They said there are too many commissions in the country but if they will be of use to Nigerians, then why not. But my consolation is that same senators have now paved the way for the six-year one term. I will support it.
?
What is your position on the present security of the nation and the role of the Nigerian police?
The issue of security in this country is unfortunate and quite pathetic. Having gone through what the country has gone through in terms of providing for the security, we are still not getting? the desired results. For eight years during my service at the Senate I can say categorically that the amount of money, public funding applied towards meeting the needs of the security agencies? was colossal. Yet there is nothing, for that amount of money, that can be seen. I can also say without fear of contradiction that Nigeria spends far more money on security than any country in Africa.
It beats my imagination that when our servicemen go on foreign mission, for instance, to the United Nations, African Union intervention services, they come back with honours. They get awards for the services they provide outside the country, but the reverse is the case when they are here in the country. So, this is something we all need to check by ourselves: why is it that our policemen and women serve abroad and come back with all kinds of honours and citations, but, in Nigeria, the same police men and women cannot be said to have any good commendation, not? to talk of citation; what is wrong?
Is it we Nigerians generally or the Nigerian factor in their services here, which is totally eliminated when they are abroad; or is it the command structure in which they find themselves serving. It is very clear that the problem has to be with the Nigerian factor, the command structure or the lack of informed leadership by those that lead them, because when they go out, they are under the command of people of other nationalities and they come back with honours. So, obviously, we should be asking questions and I put all these blames at the doorstep of the police high command. All the problems of police in Nigeria are at the police headquarters.
I’m talking about the structure and defects and the lack of facilities faced by the Nigeria police is rarely heaped at the police headquarters because, at the governmental level, adequate provision or near adequate provisions are made but it doesn’t trickle down; it hangs up somewhere within the structure. What is within the budgetary allocation – i.e. the welfare of the policemen and women don’t get to them -? how do you expect them to work? They don’t have what is due to them when due and it affects their performance. A policeman is transferred from Maiduguri or somewhere, and he has to travel back at the end of the month to collect his salary – no travelling or accommodation allowance; the system has collapsed. Where a policeman is posted, there is no accommodation and he left his families in a ramshackle accommodation and gets eventually thrown out by the same police out of the barracks – there are so many cases of such, so where is the moral.
Firstly, we have no respect for the police; we don’t respect them when we see them and yet they are expected to protect us. We don’t separate the good from the bad among them; we generalise all of them. My gardener, and is man who washes my cars, earns more than the police sergeant, and both my? gardener and I are supposed to be protected by the sergeant; so, what kind of service do you expect from? him?
Do we foresee a possible change from the Nigerian police?
The police, as an institution needs to be decentralised because it is over-centralised for the services expected of them for the size of this country. The size and population of this country demand that police should be decentralised to make it manageable. As it is now, it is unmanageable because there are too many fingers in the pie. Then we adopted a zonal system which ought not to have been applied to the Nigeria police for the sake of policing Nigeria.
The zonal structure of the police was a misconception and until it is reviewed and we have go back to the police Act – if you look at the police Act, there is nothing like zones. If you also look at Nigeria’s constitution, there is nothing like police zonal commands. It is an administrative creation that becomes an enigma, terribly very costly in the replication and duplication of officers and offices in all the zones and the commands. It was a mistake for the police to copy from the armed forces.
Because they have a divisional command and, of course, the police want to follow suit and the government of the day, for whatever reasons, concurs. For the eight years that I was at the Senate, I was working tirelessly to get rid of the police zonal commands; instead it got increased. A single tree, like we all know, cannot make a forest, so I gave up. It appears when the matter comes up they know which buttons to press and the matter dies off. Police has no business with zoning, but decentralisation. I don’t support state police, but, at least, they should be decentralised. The Act only recognises the division and the commands. There is no act supporting the zonal command; not a single Act, not even a decree.
It is gradually becoming a norm in involving the army to solve crisis; how healthy is this to our democracy?
Very bad and unfortunate. They should not call the army into matters that the police and the civil defence are more than capable of handling. We use the army in order to instil a greater fear and something wrong is being perpetrated because the public tends to fear the army more than the police. The army commits more atrocities and get away from it. Any time you see the army being brought in, behind it you see something unethical, terribly bad and not good for the nation.
Is the police service commission faithful in their supervisory role of the police?
There is a constant battle between the Police Service Commission and the inspector general of police (IG) because, to my knowledge and the little experience I had with them, there are certain powers that hitherto were enjoyed and exercised by the IG in the absence of the commission, and as soon as the commission came in, those powers reverted to the commission and no inspector-general of police has ever conceded that. It’s always a running battle – like recruitment, discipline, promotions, transfers,? is all the functions of the commission, unless and until the commission delegates those authorities to the IG, he has no powers to do so. You find out that all IGs promote, demote, discipline. It is actually a running battle so I cannot say the commission has disappointed me; I’m only praying that the police hierarchy see to the legal position in which they are to operate because you cannot be the judge, the jury and the prosecutor – which the IG has been all along. Once the commission has its duties, the IGs have certain duties cut off and there are certain duties that the IGs don’t want to relinquish because all his predecessors had been enjoying it.
Still on the security of the nation, the Boko Haram menace has destroyed many lives and property worth millions; do you think the police is living up to expectations in providing security in the country?
Much as I don’t like talking about Boko Haram, the Boko Haram is our own creation and it has been all along with us but has not been to this extreme. They are group of people who believe they are defending a particular cause, but militancy ought not to have been their modus of operandi. They have the right to defend what they believe is their right, and they are defending it, but they don’t have the right to take somebody else’s life in the name of defence.
What the government needs to do is to call these people and find out where they are heading; what is their demand; what cause or causes gave birth to their existence; what can we collectively do to bring about a peaceful co-existence with these people? It is simple but it was neglected. If we can go to the extent of sitting with the Niger Delta militants, what stops us from doing same with these insurgents; they are also insurgents. They have a cause? they believe in just like the Niger Delta. You cannot condemn one and make peace with the other. Both have equal destructive tendencies, so, there is need to come together and look at their plight because what is good for one is also good for another.
But most people are of the opinion that giving unnecessary attention or amnesty to the Boko Haram may trigger another group from another area, may be the south-west.
Well if the government thinks that is the safe way to do it, by all means the can go ahead. If it takes one insurgency to dictate to another until we get to all of them and solve them, so be it; it? is a phenomenon. Look at what is happening in the Arab world today; whoever imagined or expected that it will happen. We are not? different. No attention is unnecessary. There is a lot of tension and passion among Nigerians. Nigerians, generally, are pressed to the limit, and those who bring their grievances out should be listened to. You cannot dismiss it by saying ‘unnecessary attention’ because there is no attention that is unnecessary.
Looking at the number of innocent persons that are being maimed and killed and the scale of destruction of property, if the attention can save one life then it becomes very necessary. I don’t believe that they are groups of people who just jump up at the high risk venture for nothing. They started this from a hidden background to a point where they are now out demanding urgent attention. We owe it a responsibility to find them out and identify what is their mission, what brought about this and what aggravated them; because, apart from what we see on the face, there could be more but I can tell you it is frustration and joblessness. They just got a name – Boko Haram. They are all educated considering the kind of text they send. An uneducated person cannot send such text and cannot go on the internet; they are educated like you and I. The government must find a way we can save lives and ensure peaceful co-existence, simple.
Talking about negotiating with the Boko Haram, some groups, including the security chiefs, have said that is not necessary while others said it is the only way forward; what is your opinion?
If you are the security personnel, will you give in to that negotiation? Will you not be hanging your neck out as unfit and improper to lead? Every one of them is saving their positions. Deep inside them, they know that there is need for dialogue. Government is all about dialogue and negotiation. Any government which insists on not dialoguing is digging its own grave and will definitely not have peace. Peace, tranquillity and peaceful co- existence are the first assignments of any government; so, for a government to say we are not going that way, they better have their heads examined. The way forward is to go back to negotiation and dialogue, not only with the Boko Haram, but all other groups that are fighting a cause. They need to dialogue with governments at all levels for the sake of peace and democracy to strive. It must be a government of consensus, that is loved and accepted by people. Failing in that means they are unfit to govern.
Imagine what happened in Britain, throughout that period, you didn’t see their police with guns, but try that in Nigeria, you will see how human beings will be sprayed with bullets. That is a shame on all of us. We should be able to dialogue with and convince one another. If you like, you eat dog and I eat monkey or whatever, and we are still brothers; but our government has failed to do that.? So, for government to say they won’t follow the part of dialoguing with them; which part are they following – relying on the army and police to come and do their bit? The government better go to where they will be taught how to dialogue with the citizens.
There has been cases of bomb explosions and detonations in Kaduna State, yet the government says security is being given the highest priority. In your opinion, do you think the state government is doing well in terms of security?
I don’t know about that, but you should know that like every other aspect of life, it graduates. Bombings in Nigeria started from Lagos, with NADECO ( National Democratic Coalition, a political pressure group form after the annulled June 12, 1993 elections).It moved to Port Harcourt and now it is in Kaduna. So, the security issue is a federal issue and collective issue; it cannot be separated. I don’t know what Kaduna State government is doing and I don’t know what they can even do. You read the papers and the head of security in Kaduna tells you they have discovered a bomb under a bridge in Kaduna, a head of security is making that revelation, what does he want? a medal from us for discovering a bomb. That is not news; you are rather scaring people away from the state – you defuse it. So be it and more power to your elbows; not to make it a press show. ?
Nigeria is spending billions of naira annually to import food.
Nigeria needs not spend that much amount on importation of foodstuff to the country, but if the government wants to give contracts to favoured ones, that is what you experience. They give the import licences to those they favour; otherwise the farmers, as peasant as we call them, can feed this nation. The total food we import here is just about 10 percent of the total food we consume in this country. That is something we should all be proud of and respect our farmers, and government in particular should review its position with regards to this lip service given to agriculture in this nation. No nation that has this strong base in agriculture will allow its currency to be watered down like ours because it affects those feeding the nation. It affects the farmers more than any other sector because they hardly get value for their productivity, and here we are talking about minimum wage. Who grants the farmer his own minimum wage? Who speaks for them and lots of others not on government payroll.
?