As compelling security, political and economic challenges push Nigeria to the brink, two elder statesmen and former military heads of state – retired Generals Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida bite the bullet and express weighty positions in a novel, joint ‘state of the nation” address. LOUIS ACHI appraises the kernel of the duo’s submissions on the way forward for a troubled nation and the reactions it has provoked.
The stories of both erstwhile military veterans are intimately intertwined with the history of post-independence Nigeria. Perhaps, in a fundamental sense, both are also children of providence. Some however believe this dimension fits General Olusegun Obasanjo better than the amoured corp, Minna-born General Ibrahim Babangida.
They readily point to Obasanjo’s fairy-tale trajectory from the 1967-70 Biafran crisis to becoming military head of state; from a model hand-over to civilian rule; to becoming an international statesman; willy-nilly to prison; and from prison to presidency in 1999. For Babangida, the story is different but no less compelling.
Powered by the mix of a trinity of forces – unrelenting drive to succeed, providence also and careful planning, the ascendancy of former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida to the national stage provides a study in the military-political intrigues intimately associated with the evolution of an African nation state.
Today, ratcheting up his growing image as a soldier-statesman, Babangida belongs simultaneously to both the military and civilian wings of the mainstream Northern political intelligentsia, a group that has largely shaped the national political landscape with its astute brand of realpolitik. Within this powerful arena, he is seen as a prime mover. But have the times changed for the ex-amoured corps general? Hardly so!
Babangida’s last effort to democratically retrieve power, a project torpedoed by President Goodluck Jonathan’s rejigging of the Peoples Democratic Party’s rules of engagement, willy-nilly, led to his announcement of retirement from politics.
But from this ‘retirement’ he has made successive interventions as events that fundamentally threaten the nation’s political stability unfold. The latest was his last week’s joint “state of the nation”address with Obasanjo, to Nigerians counsel to President Jonathan to seize the moment and restructure Nigeria.
However, beyond whatever speculations Babangida’s antagonists may adduce for his interventions, a common consensus is that his positions cannot be written off lightly. This scenariosquarely applies to Ogun State-born soldier-statesman Obasanjo.
For whatever they are worth, Obasanjo and Babangida’s standpoints on key issues that have impacted the pace of socio-political emancipation of the polity carry sufficient weight to provoke appropriate national discourse. One of such issues currently, is their brutally candid x-ray of Nigeria’s endangered national journey.
The Message
The opening stanza of their compelling homily captures and contextualises the core of the national dilemma. “Unfolding events in our dear motherland, Nigeria, over the last few years are threatening to unravel the nearly a century old labour of our founding fathers and subsequent generations in building a strong, united, peaceful nation that can accommodate and cater for the needs and aspirations of our diverse communities. Internecine crises are raging across the land unabated with damaging consequences on the social, political and economic life of the nation.”
The method, moment and apparent motive of the call by Obasanjo and Babangida to all Nigerians for peace, tolerance and dialogue in the midst of the present dangers suggest serious introspection and consideration of the real possibility of the break-up of the nation.
Both, wise in the ways of crises and danger, are clearly trying to appeal to the most patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of a divided, distracted and angry polity. There is more.
According to the two ex-military top guns, “The loss of innocent lives being experienced by the day across the nation is simply unbearable.
Currently, the nation is gripped by a regime of fear and uncertainty that virtually all citizens have difficulties going about their normal day to day lives without great anxiety and trepidation.” With justifiable gravity, they handed down a kind of ultimatum to the current political leadership of the nation and clearly stated that the current trend must end.
Their words, “This cannot be allowed to continue! A deeply worrying trend that is emerging from this terrible situation is that a pervasive cynicism is beginning to set in, so much so that millions of true Nigerian patriots are starting to question the platform upon which the unity of this country rests.
This is simply untenable. The people of this country must not allow whatever sense of frustration, fear and despair we are experiencing now to supersede our hopes for a collective destiny which lies in our continued existence as a Nation. For us, and we believe for millions of other Nigerians, the continued unity of this nation is not only priceless but non-negotiable.”
Pushing a diplomatic course to acknowledge what passes for efforts of the current central government at leadership, the duo still hammered home what imperatives to be pursued that could provide meaningful change.
“While we are very much aware of the efforts various governments in the country are making to confront the escalating security challenges across the country, we believe that it is time that these efforts are scaled up to be more involving and inclusive.
In this regard, whatever robust security measures are put in place to contain the situation, as is normal in such circumstances; they must be complemented with an equally intensive process of community involvement.” This surely represents free counsel for President Goodluck Jonathan.
To make their points much clearer, they provided a specific engagement plan. “We therefore urge all governments in the country, starting with all the 774 local councils to comprehensively engage their communities at the various levels including: elders, youth organisation, trade union and associations, women bodies, the clergy and other community stakeholders.
We also call on the Federal and States governments not only to encourage these grassroots engagements for peace and beneficial coexistence but should work out the framework to sustain the engagement. In all these efforts it is important to emphasise that our diversity is a course for celebration not a cause for lamentations.”
The dimension of dialogue as a central option of engaging the militant Islamic Boko Haram sect was also brilliantly played up by the battle-hardened veterans. According to them, “Ample opportunities are therefore at hand to bring all armed belligerents to table for meaningful dialogue with the authorities for our future and that of our children and grandchildren.
Finally, we need to reiterate that no meaningful development can ever occur in an atmosphere of violence and hatred. History has shown that any society that is built on the structures of violence and intolerance cannot prosper.”
But not unexpectedly, such positions expressed by the two ex-generals can hardly escape reactions from the Nigerian people.
Reactions
While some tendencies, personalities and groups deployed a take-no-prisoners approach in their response to the Obasanjo/Babangida homily, some acknowledged the wisdom of their intervention, while others expressed a mixed grill of positions.At press time, the presidency has not made any clear reactions to Obasanjo/Babangida joint position. It has neither rebuffed nor openly acknowledged the counsel from Ota/Minna.
For the Opposition parties’ grouping, Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP), it was a mixed grill. While commending the two generals, the group described the joint statement as a welcome development and noted that it is “noble, patriotic and clearly the passionate concern of elder statesmen, which must be matched with action.” But after applauding the ex-heads of state, they went for the duo’s jugular.
The CNPP in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Osita Okechukwu, called on both leaders “to fast-track intensive community involvement by returning the billions of United States Dollars (USD) looted under their administration.
Accordingly, it is our candid view that if the billions of U.S. Dollars siphoned during the Gulf War Oil Windfall under General Babaginda’s watch and billions of U.S. Dollars fleeced off under General Obasanjo’s watch are returned to the Federation Account, it is enough to fully engage millions of unemployed youths.”
There was still more flak for the duo’s efforts. “It is indisputable that the monies stolen under the two regimes are more than enough to complete the Mambilla Hydro-Power Plant, Kano-Lagos and Maiduguri-Port Harcourt modern rail lines and two refineries of 500,000 barrels per day capacity. This could have stimulated employment and kept the Boko Haram insurgents, kidnappers and other scoundrels busy. This is real community involvement.”
While regional groups, including the Arewa Consultative Forum and Afenifere welcomed the intervention of the two elder statesmen, it received thumbs down from Ohanaeze which flayed the duo for failing to take heed during their separate stewardships of the country.
The Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, in its reaction dismissed the intervention as nothing new even as it affirmed that its national leader, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, himself a former Head of State, would not team up with the former rulers in their campaign.
The CPC spokesman, Engr. Rotimi Fashekin stated that Buhari had already categorized the Boko Haram insurgency as a variant of three forms with the political variant, allegedly embedded within the Goodluck Jonathan administration.
While welcoming the intervention, the Afenifere Chief Reuben Fasoronti stated, “It is a bit late as we had expected it before now. We were all waiting for that because they had to speak. I had once said the leaders who were supposed to speak have not done so because the Boko Haram is a menace and we cannot just look on and watch. I am sure.
The ACF through its spokesman Anthony Sani held, “What we have said is that there is nowhere in the world where force has ever worked on terrorism. We gave examples of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and we have given example of Somalia and we came back home and said Yar`Adua used force in 2009. It was against that experience that we said let us try talking to them and we have been very consistent on that. We don’t want to give it a northern or religious colouration.”
However, giving no quarters, Lagos lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana blamed the current woes confronting the country on two former heads of state, describing as an arrogant posture, the failure of both of them to apologise to Nigerians in their statement for the alleged havoc their regimes had caused the country
According to Falana, both former heads of state of misruled the country and failed to harness the nation’s resources, a development which he said, led to the current condition of the country. “For about 20 years both of them misruled and wasted the rare oppotunity to harness our abundant resources to make Nigeria one of the leading nations in the world, hence the current state of poverty, fear and uncertainty.”
Meanwhile, pro-democracy activist and chieftain of the Save Nigeria Group (SNG), Yinka Odumakin faulted Obasanjo and Babangida’s joint statement, describing the duo as part of Nigeria’s problems.
On his part, constitutional lawyer, Itse Sagay, accused the former leaders of being unable to proffer solutions to Nigeria’s problems, adding that “their reaction was merely natural. They are merely reacting the way most Nigerians are reacting. No obvious solution being proffered.”