As Nigeria’s president, Muhammadu Buhari, departs Abuja tomorrow (Sunday) to Washington DC, the capital city of the United States of America for his historic meeting with President Barrack Obama who initiated the official visit, there are already widespread concerns and heightened expectations among Nigerians, particularly those in diplomatic and security circles as well as strategic studies experts, as to whether or not, the trip will achieve its desired goals. This anxiety arose from the fact that similar official trips by the immediate past leadership of Nigeria to frontline American and European countries, have not yielded sufficient fruits in terms of bilateral promises, cooperations and opportunities for Nigeria to tackle her domestic problems.
Some of these challenges include the nagging issue of Boko Haram insurgency, corruption, war against poverty, hunger and rampaging tropical diseases like the malaria scourge, poor state of key infrastructure, sustenance of the nation’s emerging democracy, job creation through direct foreign investment inflow and stimulation of the real sector of the economy and revitalisation of the ailing national economy, among other internal challenges.
The visit could also foster international cooperation, help in intelligence gathering, renewed and diversified trade opportunities and aid the anti-corruption fight by blocking foreign accounts.
The issue of stolen funds from Nigeria’s treasury by Nigerian officials and their cronies which Buhari is making efforts to repatriate is also a key issue to be discussed.
The American visit, is President Buhari’s first official outing to the United States since his inauguration on May 29 as president of Nigeria. According to the official travel details and itinerary of the president released on Wednesday by his special adviser on media and publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, the Nigerian leader, would, on arrival in Washington DC tomorrow, be received by the US Secretary of State at the State Department along with his entourage, which includes the governors of Imo ( Rochas Okorocha), Nasarawa (Tanko Al-Makura), Edo (Adams Oshiomole), Borno (Kashim Shettima), Oyo (Abiola Ajimobi), governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele and the permanent secretaries of the federal ministries of defence, foreign affairs, industry, trade and investment, among other key officials of government.
However, there are concerns in some quarters in Nigeria, that beyond the crucial issue of insurgency ravaging the country, the controversial issue of same sex marriage or gay rights would feature prominently in the discussion between President Muhammadu Buhari and his American counterpart, Barrack Obama. It is noteworthy that the US Supreme Court, Canada, Spain, France, UK, Ireland and the European Union, have all okayed the same sex marriage or gay rights. Though a reasonable population of the citizens of these countries are actually not in support of the obnoxious gay right laws.
It is however expected that should such a discussion come up, the Nigerian leader would be able to handle the issue diplomatically and appropriately. During the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, the United States government stated that it would withhold all it’s aids to Nigeria should the nation refuse to accept gay rights.
But in an apparent response to this subtle diplomatic threat, the Nigeria’s 7th Senate through its former Senate president, Senator David Mark, boldly told the US authorities that if accepting gay rights would be a pre-condition for extending aid incentives to Nigeria, then they should withhold such aid because Nigerians are not beggars. Many people believe that the United States in particular does not habitually offer free gifts or assistance to any nation.
According to some analysts, aids to nations by the United States was usually a grotesque Greek package. Thus, they often offer help when there are underlying benefits to derive from such aids. In this case, many are equally of the view, that US under President Barrack Obama, may be targeting some oil or other economic benefits in Nigeria, which could be the hidden motive for inviting President Buhari.
There could also be imperialistic tendencies and trade exploitations at the expense of Nigeria.
Some scholars in strategic studies have equally canvassed for a total exercise of caution, wisdom and tact by Nigeria’s president during discussion with his American host especially when the issue of possible offer for assistance by the United States in tackling the activities of Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria comes up. They maintained that while it is necessary that the insurgency was urgently combated, it is advisable that every American offer is weighed against Nigeria’s national interest.
They argued that Darfur is a classic example of US military intervention in seeking ultimate solution to internal insurgency or crisis situation in a country. But the inability to achieve the desired peace and restore sanity in such countries have raised questions about America’s motive and capability. “In such situations, the US often fail in their expedition. They seem to be more interested in other hidden interests,” said Dr Ikeyinna Okpara, an Abuja-based political scientist.
However, among the ecclesial group in Nigeria, the concern over President Buhari’s trip to the United States is more evident. They were unanimous in urging the president to hold out strongly on issues regarding Nigeria’s sundry interests during the parley with president Obama. For instance, the General Superintendent of the Holy Spirit Mission Church, Bishop Charles Ighele, specifically urged President Buhari to endeavour to seek America’s support in building the institutions of government in Nigeria.
He also urged the president to focus on projects that would address poverty in the country during the visit. On the contentious question of gay marriage, Ighele said that legalising same sex union was not, and should not, be a priority of governance, hence he urged Buhari to predicate his discussion with President Obama on how to end poverty in the country.
Also, the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria ( CBCON), called on both President Muhammadu Buhari, the nation’s lawmakers and the judiciary officers as well as other political leaders in the country, to shun all pressures to legalise gay marriages in Nigeria. The Bishops who expressed fears over the legalisation of same sex marriage in the United States of America and elsewhere as well as the continuous push for gay rights, however enjoined the president to be wary of the trending dangerous influence of lesbianism, gay, bisexual and trans-gender campaigns.
President of the Catholic Bishops, Most Reverend Ignatius Kaigama, described the gay marriage as offensive and lamentable, based largely on distorted perception of natural law, the will of God and the human nature. But considering the religious and moral inclination of Nigerians, it would be a herculean task to get the two-third majority of the Senate or House of Representatives to overturn the anti-gay law.
The visit could also foster international cooperation, help in intelligence gathering, renewed and diversified trade opportunities and aid the anti-corruption fight by blocking foreign accounts.
The issue of stolen funds from Nigeria’s treasury by Nigerian officials and their cronies which Buhari is making efforts to repatriate is also a key issue to be discussed.
The American visit, is President Buhari’s first official outing to the United States since his inauguration on May 29 as president of Nigeria. According to the official travel details and itinerary of the president released on Wednesday by his special adviser on media and publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, the Nigerian leader, would, on arrival in Washington DC tomorrow, be received by the US Secretary of State at the State Department along with his entourage, which includes the governors of Imo ( Rochas Okorocha), Nasarawa (Tanko Al-Makura), Edo (Adams Oshiomole), Borno (Kashim Shettima), Oyo (Abiola Ajimobi), governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr Godwin Emefiele and the permanent secretaries of the federal ministries of defence, foreign affairs, industry, trade and investment, among other key officials of government.
However, there are concerns in some quarters in Nigeria, that beyond the crucial issue of insurgency ravaging the country, the controversial issue of same sex marriage or gay rights would feature prominently in the discussion between President Muhammadu Buhari and his American counterpart, Barrack Obama. It is noteworthy that the US Supreme Court, Canada, Spain, France, UK, Ireland and the European Union, have all okayed the same sex marriage or gay rights. Though a reasonable population of the citizens of these countries are actually not in support of the obnoxious gay right laws.
It is however expected that should such a discussion come up, the Nigerian leader would be able to handle the issue diplomatically and appropriately. During the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, the United States government stated that it would withhold all it’s aids to Nigeria should the nation refuse to accept gay rights.
But in an apparent response to this subtle diplomatic threat, the Nigeria’s 7th Senate through its former Senate president, Senator David Mark, boldly told the US authorities that if accepting gay rights would be a pre-condition for extending aid incentives to Nigeria, then they should withhold such aid because Nigerians are not beggars. Many people believe that the United States in particular does not habitually offer free gifts or assistance to any nation.
According to some analysts, aids to nations by the United States was usually a grotesque Greek package. Thus, they often offer help when there are underlying benefits to derive from such aids. In this case, many are equally of the view, that US under President Barrack Obama, may be targeting some oil or other economic benefits in Nigeria, which could be the hidden motive for inviting President Buhari.
There could also be imperialistic tendencies and trade exploitations at the expense of Nigeria.
Some scholars in strategic studies have equally canvassed for a total exercise of caution, wisdom and tact by Nigeria’s president during discussion with his American host especially when the issue of possible offer for assistance by the United States in tackling the activities of Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria comes up. They maintained that while it is necessary that the insurgency was urgently combated, it is advisable that every American offer is weighed against Nigeria’s national interest.
They argued that Darfur is a classic example of US military intervention in seeking ultimate solution to internal insurgency or crisis situation in a country. But the inability to achieve the desired peace and restore sanity in such countries have raised questions about America’s motive and capability. “In such situations, the US often fail in their expedition. They seem to be more interested in other hidden interests,” said Dr Ikeyinna Okpara, an Abuja-based political scientist.
However, among the ecclesial group in Nigeria, the concern over President Buhari’s trip to the United States is more evident. They were unanimous in urging the president to hold out strongly on issues regarding Nigeria’s sundry interests during the parley with president Obama. For instance, the General Superintendent of the Holy Spirit Mission Church, Bishop Charles Ighele, specifically urged President Buhari to endeavour to seek America’s support in building the institutions of government in Nigeria.
He also urged the president to focus on projects that would address poverty in the country during the visit. On the contentious question of gay marriage, Ighele said that legalising same sex union was not, and should not, be a priority of governance, hence he urged Buhari to predicate his discussion with President Obama on how to end poverty in the country.
Also, the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria ( CBCON), called on both President Muhammadu Buhari, the nation’s lawmakers and the judiciary officers as well as other political leaders in the country, to shun all pressures to legalise gay marriages in Nigeria. The Bishops who expressed fears over the legalisation of same sex marriage in the United States of America and elsewhere as well as the continuous push for gay rights, however enjoined the president to be wary of the trending dangerous influence of lesbianism, gay, bisexual and trans-gender campaigns.
President of the Catholic Bishops, Most Reverend Ignatius Kaigama, described the gay marriage as offensive and lamentable, based largely on distorted perception of natural law, the will of God and the human nature. But considering the religious and moral inclination of Nigerians, it would be a herculean task to get the two-third majority of the Senate or House of Representatives to overturn the anti-gay law.
very humbled that l was a part of the Senate that was scandal free as a Nigeria political institution. That was a major achievement for me. I am also grateful that l worked with colleagues who gave their support to me as the majority leader of that Senate. And l feel fulfilled and contented that it was during my time that we achieved the kind of stability we recorded in the 7th Senate. For the newly inaugurated 8th Senate, they are still young in their tenure and therefore need to be given the chance and support to stabilize and work for the nation.
How would you describe your experience in the Senate in the past twelve years as a lawmaker. What are your moments of joy and regret?
I feel quite elated that l was part of the democratic institution that nurtured our democracy to maturity despite the very serious hemorrhage in our institutional memory. If you look at our historical challenges and experiences so far in our quest to build an enduring democracy after many years of military rule, you will discover that the parliament is the youngest of all the three arms of government. It presupposes that it requires some period of time to stabilize which the 7th Senate was able to do. You will also agree with me that it is this stability and probity that made it possible for the party in government to lose to the party in opposition in the just-concluded election. So in the 16 years of our present democracy, 12 of which l was a participant, we have seen a president handing over to another president and a president being handed over to. We also saw our democracy survive very stressful moments as a result of a sitting President’s ailment. In the same period, we saw an acting President become a president and so on. So really saw it all. That’s why l said l was part of history. But it is a thing of regret that the parliament is losing a large number of its experienced lawmakers after every election. It is this institutional memory that preserves, stabilizes and enhances the legislative efficiency of the parliament. Also, one dream that l had which unfortunately, l could not realize due to my exit, is to archive all our political milestones from 1960 to the present era.
I feel quite elated that l was part of the democratic institution that nurtured our democracy to maturity despite the very serious hemorrhage in our institutional memory. If you look at our historical challenges and experiences so far in our quest to build an enduring democracy after many years of military rule, you will discover that the parliament is the youngest of all the three arms of government. It presupposes that it requires some period of time to stabilize which the 7th Senate was able to do. You will also agree with me that it is this stability and probity that made it possible for the party in government to lose to the party in opposition in the just-concluded election. So in the 16 years of our present democracy, 12 of which l was a participant, we have seen a president handing over to another president and a president being handed over to. We also saw our democracy survive very stressful moments as a result of a sitting President’s ailment. In the same period, we saw an acting President become a president and so on. So really saw it all. That’s why l said l was part of history. But it is a thing of regret that the parliament is losing a large number of its experienced lawmakers after every election. It is this institutional memory that preserves, stabilizes and enhances the legislative efficiency of the parliament. Also, one dream that l had which unfortunately, l could not realize due to my exit, is to archive all our political milestones from 1960 to the present era.
Talking about stabilizing the Senate, how were you able to manage the different tendencies as Senate leader to achieve the kind of relative cohesion that existed during your period in the upper chamber of the parliament?
Well, l think first and foremost, it is the Grace of God and then through the help of the Senate leadership under the former Senate President, Senator David Mark and other members of the leadership and my colleagues as well. Again, l think it just had to do with chemistry. There are certain people you just naturally flow with and we just blended. It was as if we have known ourselves for years. Fortunately, l have known Senator David Mark since 1978, although we got closer when we came together in the Senate. For the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, we met for the first time in 2003, when we came to the Senate. We got on very well and that was the chemistry l was talking about. Another thing is that we were very open with one another. Whenever we couldn’t resolve certain issues or we could not take any decision within the Senate leadership, we will take it to the executive session. We worked as a team and we could almost vouch for one another. Not for one day did we undermine one another and there was no struggle to do so.
Well, l think first and foremost, it is the Grace of God and then through the help of the Senate leadership under the former Senate President, Senator David Mark and other members of the leadership and my colleagues as well. Again, l think it just had to do with chemistry. There are certain people you just naturally flow with and we just blended. It was as if we have known ourselves for years. Fortunately, l have known Senator David Mark since 1978, although we got closer when we came together in the Senate. For the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, we met for the first time in 2003, when we came to the Senate. We got on very well and that was the chemistry l was talking about. Another thing is that we were very open with one another. Whenever we couldn’t resolve certain issues or we could not take any decision within the Senate leadership, we will take it to the executive session. We worked as a team and we could almost vouch for one another. Not for one day did we undermine one another and there was no struggle to do so.
You have always talked about preserving the institutional memory of the parliament particularly the National Assembly. What we have had in the previous elections was a situation where a significant proportion of the experienced legislators were unable to return. When are we going to have less fresh men lawmakers populating the parliament after each general elections?
We will get to some point where we will retain as much of these experienced legislators in the parliament as possible. This will come when the political parties get their acts together. The loss is more in Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and that was because the party was appropriated. It was no longer what the people wanted, it was what the leaders of the party wanted. They were ready to mangle and manipulate every process to achieve what they wanted. So the state governors took total control and everybody including the President were held hostage. The party buckled under the weight of its overbearing governors and it’s contradictions. If you would remember that after the party primaries ahead of the last elections, we witnessed a one way traffic of people from PDP to other parties without a corresponding movement from other parties to the PDP. Which means that something very wrong was happening in the PDP and something better was happening in other political parties. Because of lack of internal democracy in the party, there was no way the institutional memory of the parliament could be preserved. The good news and the lesson we have to learn across board is that a second tenure can not be taken for granted. The second lesson also is that impunity is unsustainable anywhere. The greatest assurance to electoral success or victory, is the level of your internal democracy.
We will get to some point where we will retain as much of these experienced legislators in the parliament as possible. This will come when the political parties get their acts together. The loss is more in Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and that was because the party was appropriated. It was no longer what the people wanted, it was what the leaders of the party wanted. They were ready to mangle and manipulate every process to achieve what they wanted. So the state governors took total control and everybody including the President were held hostage. The party buckled under the weight of its overbearing governors and it’s contradictions. If you would remember that after the party primaries ahead of the last elections, we witnessed a one way traffic of people from PDP to other parties without a corresponding movement from other parties to the PDP. Which means that something very wrong was happening in the PDP and something better was happening in other political parties. Because of lack of internal democracy in the party, there was no way the institutional memory of the parliament could be preserved. The good news and the lesson we have to learn across board is that a second tenure can not be taken for granted. The second lesson also is that impunity is unsustainable anywhere. The greatest assurance to electoral success or victory, is the level of your internal democracy.
At what point did the PDP allow the governors to acquire or wield the kind of near absolute power and influence they had within the party?
It is a bit difficult to say at what point the governors acquired such powers…….
It is a bit difficult to say at what point the governors acquired such powers…….
Then why was it difficult for the party to control them?
The governors did not only take over at the state level, they did the same thing at the national level. They simply became overbearing, such that whatever they wanted, they got. And you know, of course, that the governors, forum helped them to achieve that. My own situation in Cross River state was a typical example. We had congresses and the result was okay. I was able to secure a court order to sustain the result of that party congress . A court order was subsisting. The party also had an appeal process to take care of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of that congress. But because the result of the congress was not favorable to the governor (Liyel Imoke), he worked for the cancellation of that result, despite the subsisting court order and the fact that the party has an internal mechanism for appeal. Also, don’t forget that it is the same governors that dictate who the Councilors, the local government chairmen, the State Assembly and the National Assembly men are. They also determine who a state commissioner is and who is appointed into every board of parastatal and corporation. Intact, they determine who would be made a minister of the federal republic. So what power is left of the President or the party itself? Therefore it got to a point that PDP became a party for the governors and it became a government for the governors.
The governors did not only take over at the state level, they did the same thing at the national level. They simply became overbearing, such that whatever they wanted, they got. And you know, of course, that the governors, forum helped them to achieve that. My own situation in Cross River state was a typical example. We had congresses and the result was okay. I was able to secure a court order to sustain the result of that party congress . A court order was subsisting. The party also had an appeal process to take care of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of that congress. But because the result of the congress was not favorable to the governor (Liyel Imoke), he worked for the cancellation of that result, despite the subsisting court order and the fact that the party has an internal mechanism for appeal. Also, don’t forget that it is the same governors that dictate who the Councilors, the local government chairmen, the State Assembly and the National Assembly men are. They also determine who a state commissioner is and who is appointed into every board of parastatal and corporation. Intact, they determine who would be made a minister of the federal republic. So what power is left of the President or the party itself? Therefore it got to a point that PDP became a party for the governors and it became a government for the governors.
No comments:
Post a Comment