WELCOME TO NEWSEXPRESS: The Brexit Nightmare By Reuben Abati

Otunba Gani Adams is the National Coordinator of the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC). A delegate to the 2014 National Conference, he spoke in this exclusive interview with TEMIDAYO AKINSUYI on the state of the nation, why his group supported former President Goodluck Jonathan in the 2015 presidential elections, agitations over Nigeria’s restructuring and other issues. Excerpts:
You campaigned for former President Goodluck Jonathn during the 2015 presidential election. One year after, many Nigerians are groaning over the change they are receiving from the ruling All Progressives Congress under President Muhammadu Buhari. Can you say you have been justified?
First of all, let me make a clarification here. It was not the entire South West that supported President Muhammadu Buhari during the 2015 presidential election. We can easily quantify it as ratio 60:40. 60 for President Buhari and 40 for former President Goodluck Jonathan. Even when you look at the overall result of the election, it was still 60 to 40. The APC had 60 percent votes while the PDP and those who voted for Jonathan, who was seeking re-election as president, had 40 votes. I believe it is only an insane person that will not agree me on what I said before the election. Everything I said then was just like a prophecy and they are coming to pass now. I have nothing personal against the person of President Buhari and I don’t have anything I am targeting to get from Jonathan if he had won the election. We were pushing our position based on ideology. Since it was a two-horse race between Jonathan and Buhari, we placed both candidates on a scale and weighed them; the one who believed in the ideology of restructuring of Nigeria and the other who doesn’t believe in it. I have been fighting this cause since 1993. One of our cardinal aims and objectives is restructuring of Nigeria. Even before 1993 that I joined the struggle, the issue of a national conference has been on. It was an idea from the late Alao Aka- Bashorun in 1991 and we all believed that it is the only panacea to the myriads of problems confronting Nigeria as a nation. Now, we see a president (Jonathan) who gave us a blank cheque to go to the conference and discuss anything that needs to be discussed in moving Nigeria forward- except the indivisibility and unity of Nigeria, which is non-negotiable. Throughout the five months we spent at the conference, he (Jonathan) did not interfere in the discussions, he did not bring his personal agenda. Even when his people in the Niger- Delta went to him asking for support on the issue of derivation formula, he refused, saying that he will only abide by the decisions taken by the entire country at the confab. He vowed that he will not use as his power as president to influence any decision or suppress any section. He told them to go and fight their case at the confab. At the end of day, we agreed on 633 recommendations that will move this country forward.
But some Nigerians have also wondered that if truly Jonathan was sincere about the implementation of the recommendations, why didn’t he implement it before leaving office?
When Jonathan started his campaign for the presidential election, he promised that he will implement the recommendations of that confab if Nigerians ask him to continue in office for another term. On the part of President Buhari, he was silent about the recommendations throughout his campaign. Even when we were having the conference, he condemned it in its entirety. The National Coordinating Council of the OPC now saw between the two candidates, someone who believed in our ideology of moving this country forward and another, who does not; who has a centralist-minded ideology. That was our yardstick in declaring support for Jonathan and it was not only my decision. Take the recommendations for example; the recommendations were divided in three parts- One for the executive arm of government, one for the legislative arm and the third for the judiciary. The Federal Executive Council approved that of the executive part of the recommendations. When Jonathan was voted out, he gave the documents to Buhari, telling him that it is the most important document among every other thing he is handing over. So, he has played his part and I don’t believe those who said he deliberately failed to implement it before leaving office.
What really do you think made Nigerians who have always wanted true federalism vote for Buhari who was silent on the issue?
I believe our people were blindfolded; and it will be unfair to blame them. This is because our people, especially those in the diaspora keyed into the garbage propapanda of some of our selfish politicians in the South West. Some of this propaganda includes the one that says $49b was missing in the NNPC; another is that of the abduction of Chibok girls; these are the girls we are yet to see till today. We also have the issue of insecurity especially as regards the Boko Haram insurgency in the North- East. These are the three primary issues they used against Jonathan that made him lost out in the election. We know all these allegations were false and a calculated attempt to remove Jonathan from his position. We told our people all these but unfortunately, they refused to listen to us. They recruited some young guys who are adept in the use of the social media. They put these ones in situation rooms; tell them what to write, tell them who to abuse and also feeding young ones with lies and propaganda and so on. A lot of lies were peddled against me especially by then spokesman of APC, now Minister of Information. If you remember, two days to the presidential election, Lai Mohammed said we have recruited some OPC members that will be given army uniforms in order to rig the presidential election. When such a weighty allegations is leveled against someone, ethics of journalism requires that you call the accused hear his side of the story so as to have a balanced reporting. But unfortunately, most of our media did not bother to confirm from us and rather allow the lies to fly. By the time we want to make our clarifications, they will tell us that the false statement from Lai Mohammed has already gone into press. Two days to the governorship election, another story emanated from the same Lai Mohammed that I, former President Jonathan, (Musiliu) Obanikoro and Chief Bode George held a meeting to rig the governorship election against (Akinwunmi) Ambode. We also tried to state our side but the media did not publish it. On the day we were planning to hold a protest against some loopholes which we believed will lead to electoral malpractices such as over-age registration, creation of additional polling units in the North and shortage of Permanent Voters Cards for the entire South, Lai Mohammed also issued another statement that I collected N9.6b to organise protest against APC. After the protest, they also lied that we deliberately destroyed the billboards of Buhari and Ambode. They also said that we were brandishing all kinds of weapons and turned Lagos into a war zone. What we had was peaceful well-coordinated protest. The last time we had that kind of protest was in 1993, following the cancelation of June 12. Nothing less than 300,000 people turned out for that protest. They did all sort of things to tarnish my image. They even gave money to some OPC members that were expelled as far back as 2007 to be organising press conference abusing me. One of them, Shina Akinpelu, was even issuing statement from Ibadan challenging my authority and the media machinery of APC was coordinating it. We got wind of their spokesman in Lagos (Joe Igbokwe) who organised a press conference for them in one hotel located at Acme Road. When you use propaganda to clinch power and you don’t desist from that propaganda, it will turn Nigeria into a laughing stock in the comity of nations and that is already happening now.
Can you give instances of these?
Yes. Somebody presented a passport that bears the name of our First Lady, Aisha Buhari and at the end of the day, the former chairman of EFCC, Nuhu Ribadu said ‘it is not the First Lady’. Now the woman in question has come out to say that she has nothing to do with Halliburton and that she presently resides in the US.
Also look at the issue of Chibok girls. Out of 300 girls, one was reportedly rescued and people were jubilating. Later, they brought another girl claiming she is one of the abducted Chibok girls and the BBOG came out and said ‘this girl is not on our list’. And even the first one that was brought, there was conflicting information about her. She mentioned her name but her parents gave another name, the Chibok community said another thing. You keep hearing all kinds of contradictory statements here and there.
What is your perspective on the anti-corruption crusade of President Muhammadu Buhari?
Obviously, the anti-corruption crusade is one-sided. Every day you get pissed off with what you read in the media about the anti-corruption war. War against corruption is a welcome development but don’t use it to witch-hunt. When former president Jonathan was in power, he never tried to shield anyone from prosecution. Even his party members were prosecuted. We expect a holistic fight against corruption, not by shielding some people or lying that there is no single corrupt person in your government, even when people have the dossier about these corrupt persons. Even when some people forwarded petition to the EFCC on these corrupt officials, the presidency refused to give clearance for their probe.
What is your take on the freezing of the account of Ekiti state governor, Ayo Fayose by the EFCC?
The issue of EFCC freezing Fayose’s account is another eyesore. This is a sitting governor with immunity as enshrined in the Nigerian constitution, section 308. We are not saying Fayose cannot be investigated. A sitting governor can be investigated. His accounts can be monitored to see how transactions are being carried out. You can also be writing your reports about him, even without his knowledge. Once he has finished his trial and he no longer enjoys immunity, then you can commence his trial. You cannot systematically try somebody whom the constitution says has immunity on virtue of his position as governor. You cannot freeze the account of a sitting governor. It is against the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. By trying to circumvent the constitution of the land, you are setting a bad precedent for others to follow. If the president has no regards for the constitution of the land, what does he expect state governors to do? The governors will borrow a leaf from that and even local government chairmen will toe the same path. That will be the beginning of anarchy in the country. When you detain someone and you said you will not release him over your dead body. Even when the court has pronounced bail on that fellow, you prepare another charge just to perpetually detain him. It is just as if we are witnessing another Abacha government. So, Inasmuch as the president is willing to sanitise our country, he must believe in the rule of law. One shouldn’t be on haste to correct what is wrong; you do it on a gradual basis. What we are witnessing now is not different from what the military did during their reign. This present government is replica of what happened when the military was in power till 1999. I was so surprised that some of our people that fought against military rule, that even went on exile are supporting what is happening now. Look at someone like John Odigie- Oyegun; he was a prominent chieftain of NADECO. Now that he is the national chairman of APC he came out to say that he does not believe in true federalism, which was one of the main agitations of NADECO then. What has changed between then and now for Oyegun to come out and say ‘Restructuring Nigeria is not APC’s priority for now?’. Oyegun should realise that he is getting old. He should be concerned about what posterity will say about him. He is not the only one; even some of our senators are saying toeing the same path because of party affiliation. There is a difference between party affairs and ideology. Look at someone like Shehu Sani, he is an APC Senator, yet he still follows his ideology. He is still very consistent with his beliefs. Look at what Atiku (Abubakar) said on true federalism. Infact, he was very detailed than many of us that calls ourselves comrades. He gave a detailed explanation on concept of restructuring and how it will work. So, for a president on his one year anniversary in office to come out and say that the outcome will be kept in the archives is worrisome. This is a document that 492 eminent Nigerians sat down to work on. Amongst them were three retired Judges of the Appeal Court, one or two retired Supreme Court Judges, lots of retired Federal High Court judges, 15 to 20 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, more than 50 professors, more than 25 permanent-secretaries, some of the retired service chiefs were also there. We also have first class monarchs from the six geo-political zones, civil society groups and elder statesmen, including my humble self were there. Within the period of five months, we reached consensus on 99 percent issues at that conference. The only issue that almost caused crisis was the issue of resource control. To solve that, we gave a blank cheque to President Jonathan to establish a technical committee that will advise the presidency on it. And to imagine that this is a recommendation that President Buhari said will be kept in the archives. I believe the voice of the people is the voice of God.
Lastly, what advice will you give to President Buhari going forward?
President Buhari should try and write his name in gold in the book of history. Those who are advising him today because he is in power will work against him tomorrow when he is out of office. Look at majority of the people who were members of former president Jonathan’s kitchen cabinet; they have decamped to APC now. I was so surprised when I heard what one of Jonathans’ strongest ally, Chief Edwin Clark said about him just three months after leaving office. Most of the people that Jonathan empowered have left him for APC. Even some senators that were appealing to us to support Jonathan then are now in APC. That is politicians for you. I am advising President Buhari to carefully read the history and antecedents of our politicians. They will misadvise you and when the problem comes, they leave you in the lurch.
- See more at: http://independentnig.com/2016/06/26/360027/#sthash.saMQ5YTI.dpuf

What has the United Kingdom just done to itself, its people and the future of its youth? It is difficult to fully understand why a country in taking a decision about its future will decide on a false option that seems to negate long-term interests. And this, just because a total of 17.4 million people out of over 61 million chose to vote against the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the EU. More than 50% of these pro-Brexit voters are actually between the age bracket: 50-70, thus an ageing class of voters has taken a decision to undermine the future of the younger generation. Pro-EU Prime Minister David Cameron said he was “courageous and optimistic” when in January 2014, he tried to justify the need for a referendum.
His words then: “I think the overwhelming majority of the British people say they want to be in Europe but they want some changes to that relationship and they would like to be given a say. It is not something that we should be frightened of. It’s something we should embrace.” Cameron is now a study in political miscalculation and how over-confidence can make a political leader misread the people’s moods and expectations. He has been praised for his “courage” in quickly accepting the people’s verdict and for tendering his resignation, but I guess he won’t possibly be talking about courage. He must be full of regrets for presiding over the United Kingdom’s exit into a nightmare. Britain is better off remaining in the EU.

But on June 23, 2016, the people of Great Britain spoke and their verdict has been accepted as the status quo, except a miracle happens and the current petition by the pro-EU protesters results in a second referendum. As things stand, the people have rejected continued membership of the European Union. The implication is that the majority of the people believe that the United Kingdom is better off on its own. What is quite clear is that this British exit (Brexit) is more about the rise of xenophobia, bigotry and isolationism. It is not new. Britain has always looked backward and in-out in the course of its membership of the EU, oscillating between its commitment to a greater Europe and the need to preserve British identity and sovereignty.

The British public mind has been driven in recent years by loud, perpetual carping about too much control from Brussels, and the need to project Britain first. The ultra nationalists nursed fears about their great country becoming a colony within a EU empire. They are uncomfortable with the apparent globalization of British demographics, turning Britain into a country of many racial colours, with the influx of so many immigrants who are empowered by EU laws to be free citizens of a united Europe.

The call for a referendum on this matter has now given the Brexiteers, who just want their country to be left alone by outsiders, the opportunity they have always wanted. PM Cameron apparently underestimated their resolve. The Leave EU activists campaigned more vigorously, and deployed every possible means including blackmail and sentiments. They had the vibrant support of many political leaders including former London Mayor Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and fire-eating UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. In the event of an intense campaign that divided the country right down the middle, we witnessed the mainstreaming of xenophobia and bigotry.

Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered by an irate Eurosceptic for her pro-EU stance will be remembered as the symbol of how a straightforward, for or against, political debate turned into hate campaign and a national referendum became an act of terror. There are many lessons to be learnt from this instructively low moment in Britain.

What has happened is actually a referendum on the British establishment and the EU. The EU faces a crisis requiring urgent introspection and reform of its processes, if it must continue to serve its purpose. Britain is not the first country to avoid membership of the EU but whereas countries like Switzerland and Norway can hold out on their own, Brexit comes at great cost to the British. At hand is the triumph of emotions over reason, and the triumph of right wing populism. In many countries of Europe and even at the moment in the United States, the ultra-conservative political bloc seems to be in the ascendancy. Questions are being asked about regional integration and globalization. The basis for this is largely the manner in which regional groupings such as the EU disappoint the people. This is made worse by the failure of the leadership elite and sitting governments. When people are not happy with their governments or their circumstances, they are ready to make any choice that looks like an alternative. Opposition and anti-establishment politicians understand this game too well.

All they need to do is to demonize the establishment, tear the government of the day into pieces, call names and tell the people that the time has come for change. Those who claim that they best know how to save a nation, armed with populist rhetoric in an election time, and have the best support of the people, in the long run stand a better chance of winning. Democracy in that fashion is a play-field of emotions, not facts. It is the same scenario that made Bernie Sanders so popular in the recent Presidential nomination process in the United States, and also led to the emergence of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican Presidential candidate. Political leaders who don’t want sad outcomes only have to provide good leadership and meet the people’s expectations.

It is also clear that democracy may not produce rational outcomes in so far as it awards triumph on the basis of percentages: in Brexit, the difference is just 4%, 58-42, but the rule of the game is that majority carries the day, and as in most cases, the winner takes it all. But should the economic and political destiny of a people be determined in such formulaic manner? Brexit has left the United Kingdom in a more divided shape that it was before the referendum. The entire country is in turmoil. The taste of change doesn’t quite seem so sweet anymore, less than 72 hours after the vote. Young Britons may no longer be able to move freely across Europe and the experts have predicted rising costs and expectations and greater economic hardship. If Brexit stands, more than half of the population will be thrown into a winter of discontent, wondering why just about 1.3 million voters (17.4 million (for), 16.1million (against) should have been allowed to mislead a country. Many Britons will no longer be able to find jobs so easily across Europe. Hyper democracy has resulted in British discombobulation.

But that is democracy: it includes the people’s right to make mistakes, that is - the right of the simple majority to make mistakes at the expense of the minority, who may have lost the vote due to poor turn out or other matters of logistics. Leadership counts. The truth is that the leadership elite in Britain has also not always being too clear about where Britain should stand in relation to the rest of Europe. Even the pro-EU political leaders do not really object to Britain holding on to its national currency, the Pound, as opposed to the Euro, and Britain opting out of the idea of being a Schengen border. Britain also did not join the European Economic Community until 1973, 16 years late.

Two years later, there was an exit referendum similar to this one, won by the pro-Europe campaigners. Nothing forecloses the possibility of another referendum in the not too distant future to reverse the present decision. What has happened is perhaps all correctly British, in the final analysis: a nation yet to come to terms with certain modern realities, caught between nostalgia and the future.

This is precisely what the copycat plebiscites should understand, particularly in Africa where some commentators have been saying that some African countries on account of Brexit may begin to raise questions about the relevance of the African Union. The AU is modeled after the EU and it receives substantial funding support from it, but it has not been as remotely relevant in addressing the people’s expectations. In my opinion, there is nothing to fear in terms of a copycat effect in Africa; most Africans are indifferent about the AU anyway, they are not even aware of its existence. But as most development aid received by African countries come from the EU, this may be negatively affected with the exit of a major country like Britain, and a post-EU Britain may also be compelled to adjust its trade relations, immigration rules, and development support for countries in Africa. This, I think, is all there is to it at this end.

Closer home, the more strident call is for a referendum on the Nigerian union. In the last few days, I have for example, seen a strange Nigerian invention called “Biafrexit”. This must be a joke, symbolically thrown up by those who must know that no Nigerian government will allow such a vote.

The Brexit vote was not about disintegration, even if Scotland is now insisting on its independent right to be part of the EU; rather the vote was more about national and economic identity. Nigeria is still at the level of debates: we can hold as many conferences as we like, adjust the Constitution at mutually agreed terms, but a referendum that could lead to the dissolution of this country is not what we need, and it is certainly not the lesson from Brexit.
Posted by Linda Ikeji

WELCOME TO NEWSEXPRESS

Sunday, 26 June 2016

The Brexit Nightmare By Reuben Abati

No comments:

Post a Comment