AKIN OSUNTOKUN ON MUSLIM-MUSLIM TICKET

The logic behind the composition of presidential tickets is no rocket science. It is predicated on the principle of complementarity-you either aspire to reinforce what you consider the strength of your ticket or seek to neutralise and diffuse a negative perception. A good example of the latter is Buhari’s own previous presidential tickets.

If Buhari or any Muslim religion denominated winner of APC Presidential primaries now goes ahead and nominate a fellow Muslim running mate then the ticket will be an illustration of seeking to reinforce an identity-considered to be the selling point of the candidature. The unique identity being reinforced here is the Muslim identity-since it is implausible to find any other attribute that is particular to such a ticket.

Further implication will be found in the fact that the region from which the Muslim running mate will be sourced is the South-West-where there is a sizable population of Muslims. Is it logical to presume that a surreptitious appeal is thereby being made to Muslim voters in the zone? What signal would this send to Boko-Haram and similarly misguided potential political jihadists? What is the possibility that the materialisation of such a ticket will provoke and precipitate a counter religious mobilisation of Christians? Would this ticket be deemed nationally inclusive or exclusive?

DAVID MARK ON BOKO HARAM

Will this conference avoid what may be regarded as sensitive issues and not discuss them? Will we be able to condemn current degree of insecurity in the North occasioned and heightened by Boko Haram?

Are we afraid to openly condemn Boko Haram either for political reasons or out of fear of possible attack by the sect? How can we keep quiet when a group begins to propagate the ideology that Western education is Haram? Western education today remains the pivot of development.

Have we forgotten that evil thrives when good men are silent? A Northerner killing a Northerner, a Northerner maiming a Northerner, a Northerner disrupting business activities in the North, a Northerner destroying properties in the North and so on and so forth cannot be helping the North by any stretch of imagination. Can this help Northern cause?

As a people who desire to live together, we are bound to have problems but we can overcome these if we are sincere. Sincerity of purpose, consistency, transparency and honesty are all necessary ingredients to ensure peace and coexistence in the North; sincerity on the part of our religious leaders. We must demonstrate this in words and in deeds, and we must show that we are serious about this.

As leaders, we sometimes have to take decisions that are painful but necessary. We must be courageous even we are threatened. Can we truly say that we have done this?

Won’t we be able to condemn current degree of insecurity in the North occasioned and heightened by Boko Haram? Are we afraid to openly condemn Boko Haram either for political reasons or out of fear of possible attack by the sect? 

If the elders in the North cannot speak out and stop this menace let them tell us. Let them come out and say so boldly, because the belief out there is that some elders know about these people and decide to keep quite. If care is not taking, the way things are going, if the Boko Haram menace is not halted, it can lead to break up of Nigeria. Because there is an extent to which the people can take it.

It is all about religious fundamentalism and ideology. Poverty is not the cause, otherwise if every poor person decides to carry arms then Nigeria will seize to exist. So if people talk about poverty and hunger as the cause of the Boko Haram menace I say no.

I think it is time we educate the suicide bombers in the North that it is a wrong belief that killing innocent people would automatically take you to heaven where they would inherit 17 virgins. Of course it would be an uphill task for one person to handle 17 virgins

Under-development is obvious in the North. The activities of Boko Haram will not bring development to the North. The people complaining of under-development are the same people causing subsequent under-development through violence. 

The way the activities of Boko Haram are going at the moment, God forbid, it may lead to the break-up of this country because people will not take it for too long. Therefore, I call on the northern elders to come out quite frankly and assist in solving this problem.

DAVID MARK: WHEN IS THE NORTH TRULY NORTH?

When is the North truly north? Is it when the interest of a few but vocal group is met? Is it when the interest of a select religious group is met? Is it when a section of the North is satisfied? Or is it when the interest of the common good of the North is addressed?

Why has the North continued to lag behind in education? All available statistics show that in both literacy and numeracy, the North lags behind the South, and even within the North, there is much disparity between the zones and between states.

Is it that the states are not investing much in education? Is it that we are not providing basic infrastructure? Is it that we are not encouraging and mobilising the pupils to go to school? I am dwelling so much on education because I seriously believe that there is a linkage between education and development on the one hand and between peace and development on the other.

As a people who desire to live together, we are bound to have problems but we can overcome these if we are sincere. Sincerity of purpose, consistency, transparency and honesty are all necessary ingredients to ensure peace and coexistence in the North; sincerity on the part of our religious leaders. We must demonstrate this in words and in deeds, and we must show that we are serious about this.

As leaders, we sometimes have to take decisions that are painful but necessary. We must be courageous even we are threatened. Can we truly say that we have done this?

BUHARI: MYTH OR MYSTERY

By Opeyemi Agbaje

I have never been a fan of Muhammadu Buhari. When he took power in December 1983 as military head of state, I was already a third-year law student at Ife. He headed a brutal and unthinking dictatorship, one that jailed journalists, abolished civil liberties and declared it wasn’t interested in democracy – the only military government that never announced a transition to civil rule programme! His regime was headed for the only time in Nigeria’s history by two Northerners, indeed two Fulanis, according to some reports about Idiagbon’s ancestry. He rushed to exonerate ex-President Shagari from wrongdoing while appearing determined to pin all blame on his deputy, Alex Ekwueme, and the opposition parties. Curiously, the pattern of trials and convictions by his military tribunals suggested that Second Republic corruption was led by the opposition parties – in particular, the UPN and NPP – rather than the ruling NPN.

He sought to humiliate Awolowo, sending soldiers to ransack his residence. Yet, his “War Against Indiscipline” had its exceptions – his ADC allegedly helping to clear an Emir’s 53 suitcases through the airports during a currency exchange programme. He ran a government of no more than four or five people – his deputy Idiagbon; his National Security Organisation head, Ambassador Rafindadi; his minister of Internal Affairs, Mohammed Magoro; and himself – to the exclusion of his colleagues in the Supreme Military Council and everyone else. He was easily overthrown, having thoroughly isolated himself from every power centre. In a sense, his government might be seen as precursor to the murderous Abacha regime: seeking absolute power, promulgating retroactive laws, terrorising and proscribing civil society organisations and professional groups.

Before becoming military dictator, Buhari had served serially as military governor and minister of Petroleum under Murtala/Obasanjo, and GOC in Jos from where he and others orchestrated the 1983 toppling of democracy. The myth of outsider to the Nigerian ruling class is strange, given his CV. How could someone who occupied those positions and ran our oil sector under the military be excluded from Nigeria’s problems? As head of state, Buhari did not make any dent in Nigerian corruption. Indeed, the counter-trade scam which happened under his watch was no different, in scope and scale, from the petroleum subsidy and other corruption scandals that have since plagued Nigeria. And what about the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) which Buhari led under Abacha? Anyone who was an adult during Abacha’s reign can testify that PTF was the biggest source of patronage and corruption in the Nigerian economy in its time! One is also entitled to wonder whether Buhari cared about human rights abuses under Abacha, such as the killing of Kudirat Abiola, shooting of Alex Ibru and Abraham Adesanya, or the several concocted coup plots of that era?

I may be willing to concede, in the absence of contrary information, that Buhari may not be personally corrupt, but corruption thrived below and around him due probably to his seeming inclination to abdicate the powers of offices he occupied to someone, usually a subordinate. Most people attribute the running of the “Buhari/Idiagbon” regime to Idiagbon; it is believed that subordinates (Salahijo/Tayo Akpata, etc) managed the PTF; even his Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) is managed by Sule Hamma and Buba Galadinma, and they may have perpetrated activities in Buhari’s name which he was unaware of and which have destabilised that party. How will such a “leader” fight corruption? That trait encourages politicians to seek to be his deputy, hoping they would be beneficiaries of the “Buhari Power Abdication Syndrome”. But there could, especially in a presidential system, be an alternative model – the Abacha/Diya model – in which a deputy ends up in prison rather than power! An executive president could, for instance, simply appoint Hamma as SGF and Galadinma as Chief of Staff, while marginalising any vice president. Ask Diya about Aminu Saleh, Auwalu Yadudu and Hamza al-Mustapha; or ask Jonathan about his powers under Yar’Adua! There could be a third model, of course – the Goodluck model.

Buhari’s other shortcoming, which feeds the abdication syndrome, is his seeming lack of interest and competence in policy and administration. This could be said to have been demonstrated on national television during the pre-election presidential debates as he displayed stunning lack of depth on virtually all aspects of policy. His other limitation has consistently been displayed since return to democracy in 1999 – parochialism. While aspiring to power in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation where political stability and national integration cannot yet be taken for granted, his public statements have included advocacy for implementation of Sharia all over Nigeria; advising Muslims not to vote for persons who won’t protect their faith; accusing an Oyo State governor in the aftermath of a Fulani herdsmen and indigenous farmers dispute that “your people are killing my people”, a claim that turned out to be unfounded and perhaps the reverse; alleged incitement to violence before the 2011 general elections and petulance thereafter; and recent but not surprising threat of bloodshed and “dogs and baboons” over the 2015 elections which is three years away!

It is a mystery that Buhari gets consideration in the context of national leadership. He clearly lacks the temperament required for the office and his supporters might be well-advised to seek alternatives.

JUNAID MOHAMMED: THE NORTH HAS NOT GAINED FROM PDP

The North has had nothing from the PDP except wholesale and retail tragedy, de-industrialisation, marginalisation and economic warfare as well as total destruction of the North-East, which is a very important part of the North itself.

As for me, I have never belonged to the PDP and I don’t believe in the zoning or rotation from the days of my political career from the NPN down to 1999. It would be much more appropriate to ask those opportunist governors, who believed, somehow, they can salvage the north or they can protect themselves and their ill-gotten wealth by belonging to the PDP about their plan ‘B’.

I also don’t believe it is the business of the other Nigerians to simply come to the aide of the North, because the north itself shot itself on the foot by going to vote for the PDP. Now, the North is learning the hard way. You do not to go into agreement with dishonourable people. Because, such an agreement will always boomerang because democracy is first of all, a game of number. It is those who have the number that will always carry th day.

If the North is willing and ready to talk to other Nigerians, fine, but we must know that democracy system is not built this way and you don’t embark on nation building this way, because everything now is built on lies, on opportunism, on you chop, I chop basis. Now that it is has collapsed, they can go back to the drawing board and start afresh and see whether we can begin to have elite, political, binding consensus, without which no nation can be built.

JUNAID MOHAMMED: SUPPORT FOR IGBOS WILL COST JONATHAN 2015

If you are to use a serious map that is scientifically based, to show respective areas where you show the North-West as the palm of a hand, the South-East will only be a dot.

The South-South request for resource control also failed; the recommendations of the Confab would not scale through the National Assembly that has Northerners in the majority; any of the presidential candidates in 2015 election who commits to maintaining the current revenue allocation formula would not win; anybody who commits himself to maintain the preponderance of the Igbo in all our financial agencies, ministries and department will also not win the next election; Goodluck Jonathan has already started boasting that he has given the Igbo more than anybody in the past, for that alone he will not win the next election. If he rigs it, there will be mayhem.

ANGO ABDULLAHI: THE NORTH WILL BACK APC

Don’t worry about how many aspirants APC has, so long as a northerner will emerge, we will support him. There is no problem at all.

If you are observant, you would have seen a document yesterday which was planted in a national daily, prepared by Research Integrity in Lagos. The report made interesting reading. It was very clear that Jonathan is not even in the third or fourth position in terms of national survey, as to who is the best candidate for Nigeria in 2015. Across the nation, the man was not even rated even 10th.

So, the issue has shifted from resistance from the North, but resistance from the entire country, that the man is not fit to remain in office after 2015. So, the North has no problem with any of the aspirants that emerges from their primaries in the APC.

First of all, we  support  the primaries because the primaries are indications of democracy. But you could see what has happened in the PDP; they shut everybody out against their will and they don’t have the will to fight back. 

So, the APC should respect its constitution in terms of how candidates emerge from local government up to the Presidency. If they respect their constitution and carry out their primaries openly, fairly and transparently, they should have no problem of acceptance of the candidate that emerges as winner. So, from that point on, everybody’s hands should be on deck

ANGO ABDULLAHI: THE NORTH WILL FIGHT PDP

We have said that, we would be working for the return of leadership to the North on the grounds of fairness, equity and justice initially, thinking that the PDP, when it adopted the zoning policy, would live with this policy and respect it. But from all indications, from 2007 up to this particular point in time, the PDP has reneged on the zoning policy.

As far as the North is concerned, it is not asking for power simply because it wants power. The argument has always been what is equitable and what is just. I was once a member of the PDP at the top level and I was aware of everything that transpired on this power rotation arrangement between the North and the South. The South had its turn of eight years and the North was expecting that it was going to have its own turn of eight years.

Reluctantly, they agreed that Umaru Yar’adua should come on board and he did come on board and died after three years. So, it makes sensible and logical gesture for the PDP to say, ‘Well, the North has not had its eight years, it had three. One was lost to the Vice President because the constitution said so. So, the remaining fours years, starting from 2011, would sensibly have been conceded to the North, but that was not done.

And the PDP powers who felt they could do whatever they want and they could disregard the law from court and the constitution of their own political party insisted that Jonathan should run in 2011 and I think with the connivance of some Northerners, mainly the governors who sold out.

So, our grounds are not wanting power just because we want power, it is recognition of equity, justice and fairness. Now that the PDP has again shut its door against the North, obviously it makes more sense for the North to fight back and ensure that PDP loses this election at the federal level

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: ADVISE TO APC

Therefore, the cold calculation of most of the APC pundits and their sympathizers is that if Buhari could poll 12 million votes in 2011 when he had no structure to support his aspiration, he would do far better with a formidable opposition structure. 

But such political arithmetic (including one from my own egbon, Dele Momodu) ignores several important variables in an election in which religion, ethnicity, money and the power of incumbency will come to play. 

All said, the decision on who to field as the presidential candidate is that of the APC to make now that the PDP is staying with the incumbent. 

However, for the neutrals, a Jonathan-Buhari electoral rematch offers little by way of excitement even though political pragmatism may make that the easy pairing in the circumstance. 

On the other hand, a Jonathan-Tambuwal contest will enliven the entire landscape and draw the best out of the two contenders. But I am realistic enough to wager that such may not happen. Or will it?

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: THE AMINU TAMBUWAL OPTION

It is for the foregoing reasons that some people within the opposition party are calling for a “more acceptable” candidate who is also prepared for leadership. That is how the name of Tambuwal comes to the equation. 

And without any doubt, a Tambuwal ticket on the platform of APC will change the dynamics of the contest for the 2015 presidency. He is young (still below 50), clear-headed, has full grasp of the issues, very articulate and does not carry either an ethnic or a religious baggage. 

For sure, Tambuwal will feel at ease campaigning in Enugu, Port Harcourt and Ibadan as much as he would in Kebbi, Damaturu and Minna. 

Now, a disclosure is appropriate here: Tambuwal is my personal friend so I plead guilty to any charge of bias. But this intervention has more to do with looking at the options available to the opposition party if it really wants to compete in February next year than my own personal prejudices. 

Even at that, is a Tambuwal ticket really feasible within the context of the APC projections? With what I know and given my interactions with many of their governors and leaders, I do not think so and I perfectly understand why.

When politicians form parties and invest all their time, energy and financial resources, they do so because they have a direct stake. 

For that reason, Nda-Isaiah, Kwankwaso, Atiku and Buhari could not have been doing all the difficult work in the APC just for Tambuwal to come and take the party’s ticket. They do so, betting on themselves. 

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: THE MUHAMMADU BUHARI OPTION

Major General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), is easily the biggest masquerade in the APC. The former Head of State has contested the presidential election three times in the last 11 years against three different PDP candidates and lost thrice. 

Buhari’s selling points are his personal integrity and discipline, attributes that are sorely needed in the Nigerian political space today. 

There is also a growing feeling that as a former military leader, he might be able to handle better the security challenge confronting the nation. 

And in terms of followership, Buhari has a cult-like support base in the North-West and North-East zones of the country that could easily be mobilized on election day.

Despite those attributes, Buhari is rightly or wrongly generally perceived as parochial in disposition and for that reason, not trusted by many Nigerians in the south and the middle belt. 

But more importantly, most Nigerians (including this reporter) do not know Buhari’s position on critical political and socio-economic issues of the day since his few public interventions, almost always on BBC Hausa Service, have not provided any peep into his mind. 

Buhari also carries a religious cross: “Honestly, what do Nigerians want me to do? If they don’t believe I’m not a fundamentalist, what else can I do?” That was Buhari, speaking in an interview with TheCable last week on an issue that will just not go away. 

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: THE ATIKU ABUBAKAR OPTION

All factors considered, the Turaki Adamawa seems to be the most prepared of all the contenders in the field and given my interactions with him over the years, he has clear ideas on what he would do as president. He is also a national figure who needs no introduction anywhere in Nigeria. 

Unfortunately, his long-drawn war of attrition with his former boss, President Olusegun Obasanjo (in the course of which his reputation has been viciously assailed) and his penchant for changing political party at every election cycle has so damaged the Atiku brand that all the big wigs in the APC that I know don’t even consider him a serious contender for the ticket.

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: THE RABIU KWANKWASO OPTION

An erstwhile Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, a former Minister and two-term Governor of Kano State, Kwankwaso clearly has the requisite experience and political acumen. But a major drawback for him is that his name does not command national recognition. While such could be built over time, I don’t think the opposition party would want to gamble away what promises to be their best shot at the presidency on the altar of sentiment. So even when we concede Kwankwaso has been a good Governor for Kano State, where the APC leaders are concerned, this may not be his time.

OLUSEGUN ADENIYI: THE SAM NDA-ISAIAH OPTION

The publisher of Leadership newspaper and my brother, Sam Nda-Isaiah, has declared his intention to run for the APC presidential ticket. In terms of educational qualifications and exposure, the University of Ife-trained pharmacist comes highly recommended for the number one job as a man of vision and ideas. However, to the extent that ethnicity and religion are strong factors in today’s Nigeria, I do not believe that APC is looking in the direction of Nda-Isaiah, however impressive his credentials may be.

Nigeria Turns to Russia, Czech Republic, and Belarus for Military Training and Materiel

Nigeria Turns to Russia, Czech Republic, and Belarus for Military Training and Materiel Posted on October 29, 2014 12:29 pm by John Campbell A member of the military special forces sits on an armoured vehicle near Kramatorsk, September 4, 2014. (Gleb Garanich/Courtesy Reuters) The Vanguard, a Nigerian daily, carried a report on September 28, confirmed by the Ministry of Defense, that 1,200 Nigerian soldiers, police, and Department of State Services (DSS) are being trained by Russian special forces. The Vanguard says that Abuja has turned to Moscow following an “alleged snub or nonchalant attitude of the United States and the United Kingdom toward Nigeria in her fight against Boko Haram terrorists.” According to the Vanguard, Russian instructors participated in the selection process of those to be trained. The training is to last four months. A South African news portal reports that the Nigerian Army is seeking the funds to purchase at least three advanced surveillance aircraft from the Czech Republic. It also reports that Belarus has agreed to provide twelve attack helicopters for which the Nigerian government will pay in installments over the next seven years. In September, the National Assembly approved a special allocation of one billion dollars for the struggle against the northern insurgency. Presumably those funds will be used to pay Russia, the Czech Republic, and Belarus for the training and materiel. Abuja has refused to acknowledge and investigate repeated and credible reports of security service human rights abuses and to prosecute alleged offenders. These abuses largely preclude the United States from providing military training or other assistance to Nigeria under U.S. law, specifically the Leahy amendment. Nigeria turning elsewhere when the United States and the United Kingdom won’t play is an old song. During the 1993-1998 brutal dictatorship of Sani Abacha, western countries imposed sanctions on Nigeria because of pervasive human rights abuses. Abacha then turned to China and India for military training and materiel. Russian military training of Nigerian security service personnel may improve their capacity. In theory, special forces should be “force multipliers”, and could make a difference tactically. But, given Russian military behavior in Chechnya, Georgia, and the Ukraine, the training is unlikely to contribute to a badly needed change in Nigeria’s military and police culture, which largely ignores human rights, and will likely fuel support or aquiescence for Boko Haram.

Woodroffe: Why Lumumba was killed

Every time you decide that systems have to change, you are proud and insolent; you are out of your place. This is not where you are supposed to be. The order of the world ordains that Africans take a certain position. This is how the world is supposed to be. And the day that you rise up and begin to define it differently, you will end up in the Lumumba situation. 

His problem is that he deviated to find a different order at the wrong time. He was way ahead of his time because the architecture of the world had not afforded him the possibility of really making that successful. The problem is that we are now in a world in which the architecture provides opportunities to make it successful today and if you decide to change it, you will end the vices. 

I was in Congo sometime ago. I saw a documentary on television. They interviewed an old white guy who lives in Belgium and he had five of Lumumba’s teeth in a bottle in his house. He was a policeman who actually was in charge of arresting him. They beat him, put him in a truck and drove him around the city. Then they put his body inside a barrel of sulphuric acid. 

Before he died, the guy took a pair of pliers and ripped all five of his teeth. He put those teeth in a bottle and he has that bottle with his teeth on his mantelpiece in Brussels today. He is being interviewed in this documentary and he is showing the bottle with Lumumba’s teeth. That’s what happens. That was done as a sign to “Don’t rise up. Don’t try to be free. Don’t break the system. This is who you are supposed to be.

Woodroffe on Visionary Thinking

When we talk about visionary thinking, we are talking about looking into the future, thinking about where we want to go and making deliberate and strategic movements to get there.

And once you start to talk about looking into the future and making strategic decisions about how to get there, you are basically talking about the nature of a journey.

So nation building is in fact the journey of development.

Keshi calls US Ambassador Tactless and Undiplomatic

On October 10, 2014, the Nigerian media reported the visit of the American Ambassador in Nigeria, Ambassador James Entwistle, to the American University in Yola, Adamawa State. It was not the meeting with the proprietor of the university, a former vice-president and a presidential aspirant under the opposition All  Progressive Congress (APC) during the visit that  made the headlines and raised eyebrows but the denigrating  comment of the envoy on that occasion. Ambassador Entwistle, it was reported, had explained that the United States’ refusal to sell highly-needed weaponry to Nigeria in her war against terror and insurgency in the North-east of the country was because “the Nigerian military is notoriously know for human rights abuses”.

Such tactless and undiplomatic language of the American Ambassador should surprise no one. For years now and against diplomatic norms, it has become the hallmark of American envoys in Nigeria to utilize various public platform provided by unsuspecting Nigerians to lecture and disparage the country, its leaders and institutions.  While its diplomats are busy doing their best to create rupture in relations between the two countries, they are complemented by their bosses in Washington who constantly invite Nigerian leaders, including some past leaders who regrettably use the occasions to demean, discredit and disparage President Goodluck Jonathan and his administration.

In the wake of the kidnapping of the Chibok girls, America in its usual razzmatazz had announced to the whole world that it was sending some special service men and aircraft to help the search for the missing Chibok girls. Weeks and months later, all that was heard of America’s involvement and effort was again a disparaging statement that the Americans would not share any intelligence with the Nigerian military because of its corrupt tendencies.

With such statements from American envoys in Nigeria and those from highly-placed American officials in Washington, in and out of the Obama administration and the United States congress, it is only fair to question the sincere commitment of the American government to the corporate existence of Nigeria. This is because the American government  according to official sources, has not only constantly turn down Nigeria’s request for valuable support, in terms of superior weapons to fight the insurgents in the North-east, but has successfully blocked Nigeria from purchasing the necessary arms, ammunition and military hardware from other sources.  Against this backdrop, explaining or understanding American behaviour and attitude towards Nigeria, which includes humiliating and disparaging the country, its leadership and institutions becomes very difficult.

This is because for years and in recent times the American government not only proclaimed and often reiterated its strategic relationship with Nigeria but openly and publically professes its readiness to assist the country and its military in the fight against Boko Haram. Yet when the opportunities presented themselves for America to demonstrate the true essence of strategic relationship and help a friend in dire need, it chooses a different path all together. Equally no Nigerian should be impressed, misled or fooled by American excuses. There are credible evidence, from available official US records indicating that the United States has over the years, executed some of the biggest arms shipments, running into several billions of dollars to countries with abysmal human right records including brutal suppression of democratic dissents. A number of countries in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa including one which recent history we all know too well are beneficiaries of American military support.

Besides, even if we stretch the human rights violations a little, it is not America, whose military and security agencies have had their own share of abysmal records in almost all their operations outside the US that should openly criticise the Nigerian military the way it does. Rather, the United States can and should show more consideration and understanding as to why military personnel especially, soldiers misbehave as they often do in war.

For a country often condemned and accused of hypocrisy in its handling of human rights issues by among others, Amnesty International, it would appear that the US government irrespective of the misbehaviour of its military in war times, operates a double faced sense of propriety where the definition of right and wrong is solely determined by what suits the narrow interest of the American government. What is more worrisome is that America’s postures against Nigeria that is facing its worst security challenges since the end of the country’s civil war in the 1970s comes in the face of American intelligence community’s prediction that the country could break up by 2015 and one is thus left to wonder whether the US attitude is to hasten the fulfilment of that predication. In comparison, the United States is currently mobilising global support and spending billions of tax payers’ money in humanitarian and military support to prevent the total disintegration of a region it helped to destabilise.

While the Nigerian government needs to be more strategic in its engagement of the United States, it should make it clear to the Americans and their local collaborators that this country will not collapse and is not about to disintegrate. Nigeria will overcome its security challenges with or without American guns or boots on the ground in Nigeria and would emerge stronger. This is why it is imperative for all Nigerians, on the issue of terrorism and insurgency in the North-east to stand together and support the government and the military.  In our unity lies our strength and an unmistakable message is sent to friends and foes alike that weather they assist us or not we will survive and emerge a more unified nation.

•Ambassador Keshi, a career diplomat, was the former Consul-General of Nigeria in Atlanta, Georgia, US

US Ambassador Responds to Scatching Criticisms

Recent media reports on U.S.-Nigeria security cooperation may have led some to question the United States’ willingness to support Nigeria’s war on terrorism.  Our support is unwavering and comes from the highest levels of the U.S. government.  When I presented credentials to President Goodluck Jonathan almost one year ago, I told him the United States stands with Nigeria in its efforts to defeat Boko Haram.  That commitment is as true today as it was then.

Our support to Nigeria’s war against terror takes many forms and has been consistent from the beginning.  It involves military training as well as information sharing.  Security cooperation between the United States and Nigeria promotes the professionalization of Nigeria’s security forces and strengthens their contributions to international peacekeeping missions.  Our cooperation emphasizes a whole-of government approach that underlines the importance of human rights, civilian protection, and adherence to rule of law at all levels as key tools in the fight against terror.

Over the years, the United States has always been willing to share appropriate military equipment with Nigeria.  That remains the case today but must be understood in the context of our global policy on arms transfers.  The U.S. government undertakes a rigorous evaluation process before proceeding with the sale of military equipment to any country, including Nigeria.  The U.S. Departments of State and Defence review all potential arms transfers for their consistency with U.S. policy and interests, as detailed in the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.  This includes any requests from a country that we have sold or donated weapons to resell or donate those same weapons to another country, such as Nigeria.  We examine whether an arms transfer makes sense for the needs of the prospective country.  Part of our review considers whether equipment may be used in a way that could adversely affect human rights.  The United States believes that we bear a certain level of responsibility for how the equipment is ultimately used.  We take this responsibility very seriously and our laws require strict accountability for all sales.  Contrary to what some commentators have claimed, the fact that we carry out a careful review of equipment sales to Nigeria does not mean that we are not providing equipment – sometimes transfers are approved, and sometimes they are not.  We look at each Nigerian case very carefully, just as we do in the case of transfers to any other country.

I would also like to emphasize that the provision of new equipment alone is not a cure-all that will quickly resolve the current security situation.  Military equipment may be part of the equation to end the Boko Haram insurgency, but successfully ending the struggle against Boko Haram requires much more.  For example, meeting the basic needs of soldiers – making sure they have the proper attire, are well-trained, and are properly fed – in the field is equally critical.  In addition, providing economic opportunities to alleviate poverty is essential in order to offer potential extremist recruits a viable alternative to a life of crime and violence.  To foster the stability, security, and prosperity of its citizens, Nigeria must effectively address all aspects of the terrorism equation, and we stand with the Nigerian government in its efforts to do just that.

The United States and Nigeria enjoy a long and healthy relationship.  We recognize that security is a critical dimension of our partnership.  We want to help Nigeria create a secure and stable environment for its citizens.  I look forward to continuing to work with the Nigerian government, civil society, the private sector, and all Nigerian citizens to achieve that goal.
James Entwistleis the United States Ambassador to Nigeria

OBI: On not banning Okada

I agree that Okada contributes to crime, but we must also accept that many of them are also good people and we cannot punish the mul­titude because of the sins of a few. We cannot, for example, seek the closure of a market because a few sell fake prod­ucts in the market.

State has many motorcycle assembly plants employing thousands. Many families depend on Okada rid­ing for survival. Many youths are in that business to make ends meet. If we ban it in Anambra, it will be a disaster to the economy of the state.

APC Unveils 6-Point Manifesto for 2015

Lai Mohammed: The manifesto to be adopted at the extraordinary convention of our party is specifically for the 2015 general elections. Because of shifting priorities, we do not believe that a party manifesto should be one for all time but a document that will adjust to the changing needs of the people.

’In this regard, we have conducted a survey to find out what Nigerians urgently need at the moment to raise their standard of living and ensure their security and welfare, which is the raison d’etre of any government. Based on the outcome of the survey, we have come up with a six-point manifesto.

‘The six broad priority areas for the APC ahead of the 2015 general elections are National Security, Good Governance, Human Capital Development, Economic Development, Land and Natural Resources as well as Foreign Policy. The issue of job creation, fight against corruption, infrastructural development, health, qualitative education, regular power supply, etc are subsumed

OBASANJO: On Muslim-Muslim Ticket

Sensitivity is a necessary ingredient for enhancement of peace, security and stability at this point in the political discourse and arrangement for Nigeria and for encouraging confidence and trust.

It will be insensitive to the point of absurdity for any leader or any political party to be toying with a Muslim-Muslim or Christian-Christian ticket at this juncture.

Nigeria cannot, at this stage, raise the spectre and fear of Islamisation or Christianisation. The idea of proselytisation in any form is a grave danger that must not be contemplated by any serious-minded politician at this delicate situation in Nigeria. This time is different from any other time.

Therefore, disregarding the fact that there are fears that need to be allayed at this point will amount not only to insensitivity of the highest order but will also amount to bad politics indeed.

BUHARI: On Muslim-Muslim Ticket

I had demonstrated to Nigerians that I’m not a fundamentalist and there is nothing more I can do. Nigerians will always uncover impossible room for manoeuvre for politicians. I had to face one of the governors during one of our party’s meetings (over the issue of religion).

In 2003, I chose (the late Senator) Chuba Okadigbo as my running mate. He was a Roman Catholic. He was an Igbo. In 2007, I picked Edwin Ume-Ezeoke. He was a Roman Catholic. He was an Igbo. And in 2010, I chose even a pastor – Tunde Bakare.

Honestly, what do Nigerians want me to do? If they don’t believe I’m not a fundamentalist, what else can I do?

How about (the late Bashorun) Moshood Abiola, a Southern Muslim, who picked Babagana Kingibe, a Northern Muslim, as running mate in the 1993 presidential election? The Muslim-Muslim ticket went on to win an election that is still considered by many as the most credible in Nigeria’s history.

I have not absolutely closed my mind to picking a Christian or Muslim as running mate, if I get the ticket. This is because I firmly believe that Nigerians, having gone through what they have gone through, realise it is not a matter of religion but a matter of Nigeria.

The main religions – Christianity and Islam – know and they believe in Almighty God. The question of stealing and short-changing people in the name of religion should stop.

Mamdani: National Indegenity

I think the problem is more serious than the problem of leaders. After all, if you look at the problem of leadership, you will discover that even the best people in the opposition, when they become leaders; they start to exhibit the same characteristics. So, at that point you will discover that the problem lies beyond individual leadership. But actually, whoever comes into power is being shaped by institutions which turn them into the kind of people we identify as bad leaders. So, we have to move from the thinking of bad leaders to bad institutions which shape bad leaders.

In my view, one of the key institutions for creating a leadership in Africa which does not respond to national demand but responds to the demands of indigeneity, is identified as tribal. It is a key problem precisely because of the way we have established all our key national institutions around this notion.

This is what I talked about. Nigeria had a civil war; it came out of it and created a new constitution. The constitution was supposed to be an antidote to the civil war and the provisions in the constitution which were supposed to be the antidote, are what we know as federal character. 

Federal character says the key institutions in the Nigerian state reflect the federal character of Nigeria. The key institutions are three; the army, the civil service and the federal universities. Fine, it makes sense. Again, what does it mean to reflect the federal character? The answer is, the enrolment in these institutions must be in proportion to the weight of the population of each state in the federal population. That is also fine. It makes a point. So, if each state is a quarter according to its own population, who can compete for the quarter? That is where the problem comes. 

This is because it is only those indigenous to the state that can compete for the quarter. If you ask yourself, who is then indigenous to the state? The answer is, only those who are born in the state or have fathers who are born there. Now think of it, it means any Nigerian who lives in any part of Nigeria where he or she is not born or have a father who was born there, he cannot compete for federal positions from that state. Well, Nigeria is a single country. It means it has a single national market. National market moves people, workers in search for jobs, persons in search of lands, businessmen in search of investment opportunities and professionals in search of jobs. The market moves people. The market dynamizes a person in the loss of a job or lands in a bad way, but still they are forced to move. And in a political system which penalises the persons who move, you have powder cake which is bound to blow up because in time, more and more Nigerians will be non-indigenes where they live. The people have no choice than to move unless you abolish the market system and you can‘t do that except to abolish the indigene system. The federal character system is good provided it is reformed .And the reform I am talking about is that each state should have a representation in the institutions of the Federal Government. It is good that each state should be represented in the Army, the Civil Service and the Federal Universities, but what have to be changed is that it is only those indigenous to the state that can compete. It should be replaced by the idea that whoever lives in the state can compete no matter where they were born. If you are going to create a Nigerian nation, the indigeneity that should count is Nigeria. But if the provision is, there are those who live in a state and were not born in the state, then you are creating entire groups of Nigerians without the right to citizenship. And in my own view that will be in the majority. The intention of federal character is to be inclusive of diversity. What I am saying is that the unintended consequence of federal character is to exclude more and more people. That is a problem. Look at most conflicts in Nigeria; they are more structured around because the people‘s mindset reflects what is in the law. People have become convinced that if you are indigenous you are more right

National Indigeneity

If that is the focus and objective, then the notion of Nigerian indigeneity should be the overriding notion in which all Nigerians no matter where they live should have a representation not based on where they come from, but where they reside 

There are two views on political violence in Africa. The first is to identify the perpetrators in order to try and punish them so that they can serve as a deterrent to others. The second, which is my view, is that punishment cannot solve the problem because the violence we see is not just an isolated affair. It is part of an ongoing circle of violence. Yesterday‘s victim has become today‘s perpetrator. And today‘s victim is likely to become tomorrow‘s perpetrator. They are taking the range on each other. So what we have to do is to go beyond the question of punishment to ask what is fuelling the violence. That is the issue, there must be an issue. So, instead of focusing on punishment which will just add fuel to the violence, we need to indentify the issue and focus on reform.

Yes, it is part of it but that is not enough. I can have an ambition to get power but somehow I must be able to convince you who is not in power. Now how do I do that? It is by directing your attention to something else. Something like you are being deprived of your rights by someone else. And if you support me, you will be better off and I try to mobilise you around your rights as an indigene. This is what we see in most of these countries. You see, the mobilisation is around the notion of indigene. The non-indigenes say we live here, we must have rights. That is democracy. The indigenes say we are from here; we must have rights; that is the meaning of custom, culture. One stands with culture, the other with democracy. They are both right. Of course, it is not easy to say who is right or wrong. The point is that we have to change the rules of the game. 

According to the rules they are both right because we practice two completely contrary views On the one hand, we tell them that our culture is our indigeneity, that it is ethnic; there is no national culture here. And on the other, we tell them that our democracy is national. So which do we take? 

Well, political activism is important because ultimately there are only two ways of solving problems. It is either through force or persuasion. Activism is about persuading people, bringing them together and persuading them. It is by countering force with numbers. The force of number is better than force.

You know as well as I do that the image of Africa outside Africa as created by the corporate media is that of violent people and countries; a place where life is cheap and people are killed easily. Africa must put its house in order. We must ensure a politically meaningful Africa. Even before we can create African citizenship, we have to create national citizenship.

Mamdani: The War on Terror

My view is that we have two different things that need to be separated; one, we have national movements, who are fighting in their own territory, with their own objectives, and they intend to establish their own rule of law. Whether it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Hamas, whether it is in Lebanon or Palestine, these are movements within national territories. They have a certain legitimacy, and a right, which non-nationals don't have. The Americans don't have the legitimacy in Afghanistan, but the Taliban have, which to me is simple, in an age of imperialism; that is the starting point.

Then you have those who cross borders to use violence to implement a particular programme; that is terror, and that is both non-state terror and state terror. So, it is both Al Qaeda, and the Americans. And of course, if you know, historically, one is a child of the other, but they have parted ways. But that is a separate problem; the problem of non-state terror is not a big problem; it is not a bigger problem than the mafia was. I really don't see it; it is more of a police problem, not a military problem. But it has been used as an excuse for a military build up, but as you can see from all the airport screenings, it is a police problem, and not a military problem.

I mean, the war on terror is built on false premises because non-state terrorism has no territory; it is a mafia type problem, they operate from different territories. It is opportunistic, operating wherever there is an opportunity to operate from. It is a police problem, and it is solvable as a police problem. Beyond that, it is a political problem because unlike the mafia, Al Qaeda has a political resume, which is a result of unsolved issues, legitimate grievances. Al Qaeda's allegiance to it may be opportunistic, it may be not, I don't know.

As you said, I have been a victim of strong men, one of my biggest surprises when I went back to Uganda in 1979 was to realize that nobody I met said to me that the Asian expulsion was wrong, the most I heard was that it was wrongly done, that it should have been done differently. The biggest shock of my life was to realize that most people supported the Asian expulsion and it made me think of why? They didn't support (Idi) Amin, they opposed him but they supported the expulsion. Then I realized that there was an unsolved issue; Amin was the demagogue who was able to take advantage of an unsolved issue, and Mugabe is the same.

There is an unsolved issue -- the land question in Zimbabwe. Mugabe, as the demagogue, was able to take advantage of the land question. Zimbabwean society is divided between those with an allegiance to land, and those in the urban areas, and they are 50-50 voting in the elections. Although the oppositions says the elections were rigged, but if you take the opposition results, it is still 50-50, just two points more for the opposition. Then you know that the society is divided; it is in a civil war type situation. So, the problem can't be one person, and those who focus on one person as the problem, I think are becoming part of the problem. Of course, he (Mugabe) is part of the problem, but if you think that by removing him you will solve the problem, no, you may worsen the problem. The major problem of the African continent has been the failure to create a national citizenship. National citizenship is not created under colonialism; nobody can expect that the colonial powers will create nations. Nations are created in the struggle for independence. So, if Africa is going to go beyond the colonial period, it must be able to challenge the colonial legacy of creating different tribal authorities which they called native authorities and turn the native authorities into local authorities as constituents part of a nation. That project would have to be done after independence. In my views, most countries in Africa have not succeeded in doing that.

Mamdani: On China

I don't know; there is an article in the Financial Times, which asked: "Is China the America of the 1890s or is it the Japan of the 1980s. Because, the Japan of the 1980s, the Americans thought was the new rising super power, but suddenly it turned out to be ephemeral. The America of the 1890s was the new rising super power.

I don't know enough about the situation to tell you with confidence, which is the new rising super power, but I think what we can say with confidence is that whether there is a new rising super power or whether there are multiple powers, or which of the multiple powers would make it at the end of the race...we know the one that is falling behind. That is the US because its competitive edge is its military. And I think, its universities, its educational system, which is so flexible and so open to innovation, is beginning to close, with the war on terror. Not too much, but it is beginning to close a little bit. It is problematic; if your leaders are militarizing, you can't offer the world the leadership; you would be offering them problems. Half of the military expenditure in the globe is America's.

Mamdani: Between US and Africa

Just compare Obama's speech in Cairo to the Middle East with his speech to Africa; they are two different speeches. The speech in Cairo says: "we are sorry for what we did;" the speech in Africa says: "forget about what we did and talk about what you did." For Americans to talk about Africa's problems being African is an excuse for avoiding America's problems. But for Africans to talk about Africa's problems is not an excuse, it is a beginning.

I think the Americans have a more serious problem than just being hypocritical. Look at it particularly in Africa; American presence in Africa is above all, military. America today has nothing more to offer to Africa except for AFRICOM (Africa High Command) -- more soldiers, more military alliances, more war on terror and more militarization. That is a real problem because they are competing against the Chinese, the Brazilians, and the Indians. Everybody they are competing against is offering non-military goods; infrastructure, development; they are offering a joint enterprise in which they hope to benefit, but they realize that since they are outsiders, they can only benefit if the insiders benefit. That has always been the outsider's point of view that unless you deliver some benefits to the insider, you have no chance. The Americans have nothing to offer; Barack Obama has a nice rhetoric, but he is confronted by strong and well-established military institutions.

Mamdani: The Problems with Local Conflicts

In a local conflict, there is nobody who is right and nobody who is wrong. In Jos, one side talks about its traditional, cultural and customary rights, and the other side says: 'these are our democratic rights, we are Nigerians, this is our country, we are not in a foreign country. They are both right because we have a system, which acknowledges both rights. We don't just acknowledge culture as culture, we seem to acknowledge culture as the basis of political rights, and that is what the British brought in. So, it is not a question of right and wrong, it is a question of changing the rules of the game, and that is why I have said it is a more serious problem.

It is a chicken and egg argument; (Karl) Marx once asked a great question; who is to educate the educator? Who is to reform the system? Where will this elite come from when our entire experience has been that every opposition that joined in the critique of government displays the same character of the previous government when it becomes government? So, what do you change first? You will have to take advantage of the fact that political aspirants are in the opposition, and introduce new rules, so that when they get to government, they can be held accountable by this different set of rules or they are held accountable for implementing the different set of rules. You can't wait for the right people to be in power because the right people will never be in power; nobody will stay right under these rules. Of course, there has to be some leadership, but you can't count on it. Unless institutions are supportive of a particular kind of leadership, the leadership will not survive institutions.

Mamdani: Apartheid and Africa

In a way, we have to recognize that all of Africa was organized according to the apartheid system because the principle of the apartheid system was racial privilege and ethnic fragmentation; these two things went hand in hand. The British are the real innovators of apartheid, the Afrikaners were just stupid enough to give it a name, and so call attention to themselves, but the British were the originators. The South Africans realized that they don't have a common history; so, they had to create a common understanding of history.

Nigeria has to create a common understanding of the Sokoto Caliphate. The Jos-Plataeu indigenous is whoever came before the Sokoto Caliphate, and non-indigenous is whoever came after that. The real dividing line is not British colonialism; the real dividing line is Sokoto Caliphate. If you go to Congo, all the Luba from Kasai, who came to Katanga before Belgian colonialism, are considered natives of Katanga, even though they are culturally Luba. All those who came in the colonial period are considered non-indigenes.

We all know about the British and Belgian involvement in the killing of Patrice Lumumba, but what we don't talk about is that British and the Belgians got the opportunity because of internal failures in Congo, and Lumumba's failure to address them adequately. The internal failure was the secession of Katanga and South Katanga. Both were based on a confrontation between different indigene and non-indigene tribes, and I say tribes because I want to locate the political unit, rather than the cultural unit. Lumumba ordered the troops to end the Katanga secession, and the troops on their way stopped in South Kassai to take sides in the conflict between the indigenes and non-indigenes. There was slaughter and killings, and Dag Hammarskjold (UN Secretary-General) accused Lumumba of genocide, and then Kassavubu dismissed Lumumba. At that point, Lumumba's mistake was that he took sides in a local conflict.

Mamdani: Nigeria Issue is more than Leadership Challange

The problem is a deep one. This political culture has become so entrenched that it has become a mindset; so, it is not just a question of leadership. There is a leadership problem, but the real problem is that the people respond to their leaders because they think their leaders are right when they tell them that some people are indigenous and the resources rightfully belong to them, and that the others are outsiders. The people respond to it; they think it is true.

How do you change this? Of course, you have to remove the sense of threat, first of all; you have to convince people that a common citizenship is not going to be at their expense. Again, you have to start, at the end of colonialism, to convince people that they have a reason to be in Nigeria. Why should an indigene of Plateau State want to be a Nigerian if Nigeria just means to them a Hausa Fulani encroachment, etcetera. You have to give them a reason to be Nigerians.

I think this will involve a protracted political process; it will involve reform of the legal system, the Constitution, temporary guarantees to those who feel threatened, not a permanent regime so that affirmative action does not become a permanent feature of the political and social landscape. That would be understood to be a temporary feature with certain outcomes, which would remove the rationale for it. It (process) can't be foisted from above because it would be resisted; it would involve the building of a consensus in Nigerian society. It would involve necessarily, elements more than the political class; it would have to involve all the literate classes, in other words, all those who can be part of a discussion, which is beyond face to face. It is the springboard of an initiative.

I remember attending the centennial celebration of the Sokoto Caliphate in Abuja and I was so struck by the fact that there were two starkly opposite views in that meeting. One was that the British ended the promise of the Sokoto Caliphate; the other view was that the British saved us from the danger of the Sokoto Caliphate. In the same country, there two views; the British is the saviour, and the British is the problem. If you shifted it to the colonial period, the two sides would change their argument; those who saw the Caliphate as the danger would see the British as artificially maintaining the Caliphate, and the other side would say the opposite.

Mamdani: Nigeria is not a Failed State

I think something is wrong with this idea of a failed state. I am a teacher, and I know that a teacher who comes into the classroom, looks at his students and say to them that they are failed students, is a failed teacher. What is a failed state? It is a state that cannot maintain order; so, it doesn't take anybody bright to know that there is no order where there is fighting. But that is not the point. The point is not to tell us which is a failed state or which is not a failed state, thus repeating and telling us what we know. The point is to tell us why there is no order in the place; what is the historical process that brought us to this destination? What is the cause? Saying it is a failed state doesn't give you a cause; it gives you a stigma, and blames the patient. That is the problem with the failed state notion; it is like a teacher telling his student that he (the student) is not good. What happened in the classroom? Something must have happened, something must have gone wrong. So, we should be thinking of that history, which brought us to the point where the centre is so weak that we cannot create order. We also need to understand the tendencies that pull the political system apart are so strong, so that we can think of an antidote. Most of these things (like the failed state verdict) are given as judgment from a height, which are meant to stigmatize.