Alhaji LAK Jimoh is a household name in Kwara State, nay Nigeria, with his ingenious coinage of O to ge, a campaign slogan that has become the mantra for a political revolution to kick out a bad government. In this interview with Gbolahan Balogun and Abdul Abdul of the Midlandpost in Ilorin, the fiery politician spares no bounds as he e-xrays the nation’s troubling circumstances. But he is more miffed by the unfeeling attitude of the Senate, who “wanted to go on recess and was announcing they gave something to members to make their journey smooth ... But what are you doing for us to have our own smooth journey too? You are having a smooth journey and you say we should continue to have a rough journey…and endure. People will not listen” He says.
Let’s have a background of who we are speaking with.
Well, I think we are no strangers to ourselves. With some modesty, my name is Alhaji LAK Jimoh. I’m just one of the members of the Ilorin community. As a community person, I was once the National President of the umbrella cultural organisation of the Ilorin Emirate, which is the Ilorin Emirate Descendants Progressive Union.
I was the National President between 1984 and 1988. I used to be a civil servant, a public servant, in the mainstream of the civil service as an administrative officer. I had some branch-offs, like going to the Kwara State Printing and Publishing Corporation on secondment as the then Corporation Secretary and Deputy General Manager.
That was by appointment. With that, I became the Managing Editor of the Herald group of newspapers and an editorial board member. In fact, I was also a columnist. Biodun Aloba, the celebrated journalist and columnist of the old was the General Manager. Chief Peter Ajayi was the acting editor of the Herald then. That was between 1974 and 1976. I left the mainstream of the civil service in 1982 to go into politics.
I was the gubernatorial candidate of the NPP, the Nigerian People’s Party, in Kwara State during the 1983 general election. I contested with C.O. Adebayo, but C.O. won. I went back to the public service. I served at the federal level as the Corporation Secretary and Head of Administration of the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization in Ilorin. Thereafter, I went back into politics. I was a gubernatorial candidate, sorry, an aspirant, at one time or another. I was a senatorial aspirant and I contested the primary with Bukola Saraki. We dragged ourselves to court. It was a protracted case because he was not a contestant at the time we held the primary. Later on, things just happened. That’s now history. I’ve been in politics since then till today.
I played my role and my part each time there was an election. In this last election, I contributed my widow’s mite to advocating support for our President today, Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu.
What would you say were your expectations before the electoral victory and the assumption of office of President Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu?
I said earlier on that I contributed my widow’s mite to advocating for support for Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu. I strongly believed that he was the best available material for the APC and, one of the best available materials for the governance of this country. I strongly believed so. Looking at his antecedents, his performance in Lagos State as the governor of the place, his contribution before then to the struggle for democracy in Nigeria. And, since he passed through the trenches, I expected that he would know where the shoe pinches and, would therefore be a very good pilot of the ship to enable us to reap the benefit of the dividends of democracy.
My expectation was that he would be a very good president and that Nigeria would move, if not catapulted to a higher level of development globally.
One can assume that three months is not too short to assess a government. From what you have seen of Tinubu's government, is he meeting your expectations?
Three months, you said, is not short, I believe it is too short. Three months out of four years is too short a period. You see, this idea of 100 days - the first 100 Days of an individual in office - which I think was created by President Kennedy and, for which people have since been falling head over heels - to me, in a way, looks preposterous. 100 days is a very short period. Having said this, I will add that a good beginning can make a good ending, just as a bad beginning can make the journey difficult. So, to that extent, yes, we might talk about the first 100 days. As I said, Tinubu is a good material, very good material for the presidency of this country.
In the last three months, he has demonstrated that he has the capacity to perform. But as a human being, he must have limitations. And as the Yoruba say, atari ajanaku kii se eru omode. But I’ll modify that saying: atari ajanaku kii se eru enikan. That is, the mountainous head of an elephant, including the trunks and everything, is not a load for one man. No one man can carry it. The same thing with governance. No matter how brilliant you think you are, no matter how competent you think you are, you can’t go it alone. And I think that has shown in Tinubu’s performance in the last three months, so to speak. He is good, but because it is not a one-man show and he didn’t have the cabinet with him to advise, I think he may have made some mistakes here and there. That’s how I would put it.
Are you not bothered by the cries of Nigerians, so to say, in these last three months?
Yes. I am a Nigerian myself. You said the cries of Nigerians! Our cry, you know, because everybody is affected. Maybe you have in mind the fuel subsidy. Everybody asked for the removal of the fuel subsidy. All the presidential candidates did so. But as far as I am concerned, it was Buhari that removed the fuel subsidy because, in the speech President Tinubu read on the day of his inauguration, he said that the budget that he inherited; which was handed over to him, did not contain provision for subsidy. He said so.
Sir, there are issues around that. Yes, subsidy payment was not in the budget but one would think of a reconsideration of the situation. A president can do that. That is one. Two, in his own manifesto, he talked about a phased removal of oil subsidy. He didn’t do that and that is why people are bothered. What would you say to that?
Yes, that is why I am saying that it was not Tinubu that removed the fuel subsidy. Subsidy was removed before he assumed office. But unfortunately, when he was making that inaugural speech, he said fuel subsidy is gone. And people took it that it was him that removed the thing. But if you read the speech, there was no fuel subsidy. So, it became his own burden to fashion out how to cope with the implications and complications of fuel subsidy. Yes, as you have pointed out, I am not too sure if I read it that way- that he said the removal of fuel subsidy was going to be done in phases. Well, Nigeria has tried it so many times, removing fuel subsidy in phases. And each time, it had failed. Maybe that is why, as an afterthought, he believed that the thing should be done once and for all. There is nothing bad in doing it once and for all. What I think is bad is that the thing was done hastily.
There was no proper planning for the removal. Everybody wanted it removed, and so, he fell for it, maybe to please those who were advocating for the removal, you know. But, every project, every physical project has its environmental impacts.
In the same way, every governmental policy and programme has its own environmental impact. The environmental impact is social. The environmental impact of policies and programmes is political. They didn’t take into consideration or did not make adequate arrangements for coping with the environmental impact, the sociopolitical environmental impact, which the removal of subsidy would have on the populace. That’s what has happened. Definitely, if you remove the subsidy, the price will go up. The essence of subsidy was to keep the price at a manageable, tolerable level. If you remove it, it means that it will rise to its natural level. No arrangement was made to cope with that rise, or perhaps, they underestimated the extent to which it would rise.
Then, the NNPC spoiled the show. The NNPC took it upon itself to announce a price. You see, you have removed subsidy and you say, from now on, the price is so much, two days or three days after the inauguration of the president. That was a very bad and wrong strategy. The price jumped from, is it N300. Initially, it was from N195 to N512. From N512 to N617, all within a space of one or two months. Definitely, it will have an impact. In fact, it will have what economists will call multiplier effects on the economy. Look at the transport sector. There is nothing that does not involve transportation. Movement of people, movement of goods. In fact, the movement of services also involves transportation. It involves fueling. Even the telecommunication people fuel their generators or whatever it is to power their substations. They didn’t take all these into account or they underestimated the impact.
Unfortunately, they will say, Oh, let people just endure for a while. No. You see, take the medical people. If doctors want to do some surgery, they, first of all, apply anaesthesia or any painkiller. They know that it would be painful. They know that the pain has to be endured. Although they know that the aftermath of the surgery will be enjoyable, they don’t just begin to butcher a person without anaesthesia, without a painkiller. It’s the same thing too, with governmental policies. You don’t just say people should endure. You must apply sociopolitical anaesthesia. There must be a painkiller. They didn’t do that. They didn’t think about that. So, now, because they did not apply the sociopolitical anaesthesia or the painkiller, we are feeling the pain. And you say people should endure. If you endure and die, then who will enjoy the benefit? You must prevent us from dying so that we will enjoy that benefit which you intend.
But the government is talking about some palliatives now.
Yes, but it’s an afterthought. They didn’t introduce palliative the first time. Then the palliative… My God. What palliative have they introduced? Maybe they said they are going to provide vehicles. Yes. They will buy foodstuff – grains and five billion naira each for all the states. You see, before we talk of those palliatives per se, you must let the people know of those things you’ll provide in the short run, those things in the mid-term and those things in the long run.
Certain things have to be done first. If you say you want to provide vehicles, the vehicles are not in the warehouse where you just go and bring them out and put them on the road. It will take some two, or three months before you can get the vehicles on the road. Within those two, or three months, what happens? How do we live? Okay, if you are talking about buying grains, where are you going to bring these grains from? Are you going to buy them from the market or are you going to bring them from the reserve?
The government said from the National Reserve
Do we have enough in that reserve? They say we have the reserve. Where is it? If we have, by now it should have been brought out. We are all Nigerians. We are in this Nigeria. We know that we do not have that kind of reserve. It has to be brought. It will take some time. Within that short time, what is going to happen? Endure, endure. You have to endure.
Yes, we want to endure, but nobody is going to endure to the point of death. Because if you die, the endurance is useless. The government did not take into account what should be done in the short run while you are preparing for the long run. That’s one of the problems. The second one is some of the things that they say they will do. If you go and bring the grains from the reserve, assuming we have, if that grain you brought out is finished, is consumed, what happens? It cannot last us three months. It cannot last us six months. Do we have that quantity? We don’t have. If you say you’ll buy it from the market, do we have enough? That’s why we don’t do importation. So, there was a lot of homework that ought to have been done that was not done.
Then, labour is not helping matters, as far as I’m concerned, I was a labour man myself. I started work in the private sector. I worked with the British Petroleum. First, it was West Africa Limited when we joined it, and later, it became BP Nigeria Limited. I was chairman of the workers’ union in the Apapa zone, which was the core area of the union. I was chairman of the BP Workers’ Union between 1967 and 1968. So I’m a union man. Yes, in those days, our agitation used to be, ‘Give us more money, give us more money’. And I’m surprised that up till now, trade unionism in Nigeria has not grown beyond that level. Not just asking for, say, give us more money, give us more money. I expect the unions by now to be so articulate and developed as to be giving the government guidelines. You know, help the government with ideas, how to achieve good governance. Not just asking for money all the time.
But the argument today is that labour in Nigeria is polarised along party divides.
Forget about the politicization. First of all, the unions should see themselves now as partners in progress with governments, not antagonistic to governments; not in opposition to governments but as part of governments. The Yorubas say, that if the tree withers away, the bird will die because it will have nowhere to stay. So, you must ensure the survival of the bush, the forest, or the tree as a bird. So, I expect our unions to come out now with constructive ideas. For example, if government increases wages now, it will aggravate inflation. And what matters is not the amount of money you take home, but the amount of goods and services which your take-home pay can provide. That is what is important. Give us more money, give us more money. No. Bring down the cost of living. That's what the unions should now be saying. Bring down the cost of living.
And how do you bring down the cost of living? All of us will sit down and contribute ideas. The union should by now have that kind of facility where they will be making constructive suggestions and criticisms. Whatever criticism should be constructive, not just demanding more pay, more pay, more pay, which is going to make matters worse for everybody. So that is in terms of a fuel subsidy.
Yes, much on fuel subsidy but don’t you think there are more problems asphyxiating Nigerians besides the removal of oil subsidy that they are taking it on this government?
The government had more than enough to chew on the removal of fuel subsidy. It is a sufficient headache for the government and sufficient hardship for the people. Unfortunately, government simultaneously harmonised the exchange rate, the official exchange rate and the so-called parallel market rate. At the time the president was sworn in, the official exchange rate was about N400 and something. In the parallel market, it was about N700 and something. Harmonization of the two rates automatically means that the official rate will go up. That's the meaning. It will go up to bridge the gap between the official and the parallel market rate. Now if the official rate goes up and maybe, the other one comes down a bit - that's why initially a day or two after the announcement of the merging of the two, the exchange rate came to N600 and something - then, you say market forces should decide what the rate will be henceforth. You are not in control of the supply nor can you control the demand. So, the demand will continue to grow. The supply will continue to dwindle. Because those who were making hyper profits from the dual exchange rate, naturally will withhold their dollars. They will hoard it. So, there will be a shortage in the market. And automatically, the price will rise. Simple economics; basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, price will rise. The government should have known that. You have already removed subsidy, prices have risen, now, you come again and harmonized the exchange rate. It amounts to burning the candle from both ends. You know if you burn the candle from one end, it will be dwindling. Now if you burn it from both ends, you will fasten, quicken the burning out of the candle.
Is there hope for Nigerians in this situation?
Of course, there is hope. Why is there no hope? The government should do the needful. You see, I say bring down the cost of living. That is what is essential. It's not the amount of money they dish out to workers or whatever. Now, the way out is to bring down the cost of living or to improve the exchange rate of the Naira without bringing back subsidy. One, we must cut down on waste. Two, we must stop stealing public funds. There is a lot of looting still going on. Everybody is saying it. The president himself said it. All the leaders and the presidential candidates said it - that subsidy had to be removed because it was a scam; that some people were using it to loot the public treasury. Okay, so first of all, we have to stop that.
It is painful and surprising to all Nigerians that up till now, no government has had the guts to say: Who are these people who scammed the country through subsidy removal? Everybody knows it. The former governor of a central bank said it. The president himself said it. He keeps saying it. They are not bringing back subsidy because some people were using them to swindle the nation. Who are these people? To what extent did they swindle the nation? Even if you don't want to name them, tell us: oh, we were paying subsidy for so, so, so amount of fuel which we didn't actually receive. We were paying subsidy for so, so much fuel which was being siphoned to other countries. Why can't the government do these? Maybe it's not too late. 100 days is too short, anyway. Maybe they will still do that.
Why can't the government have a forensic audit of the NNPC, if not the NNPC as a whole, of the fuel subsidy regime? There should be a forensic audit of the fuel subsidy. So, let's know what exactly we were paying subsidy on. That's in terms of subsidy.
Again, we can improve our foreign reserves. Yes, foreign reserve. In the 50s, Mazi Mbonu Ojike, one of Nigeria's founding fathers, advocated the doctrine of ‘boycott the boycottables’. Why can't we boycott the boycottable now to reduce the importation of luxury goods? Why do we need to import so many armoured vehicles; armoured cars into this country? Who is running after who? Who is running after whom?
They are talking about kidnapping and insurgency...Boko Haram and all that
Is Boko Haram after the leaders alone? Will everybody in Nigeria be driving in armoured vehicles? That's bulletproof. Each of those armoured vehicles costs more than a hundred million naira. Why? Why do we need that in this country?
There are so many other luxury goods. Why must we have a convoy of countless vehicles because a government functionary is moving along the road? Be him president or governor or minister or President of the Senate or Speaker of the House or whatever it is. Why do we have such a high cost of running the government? Today in Nigeria, even councillors appoint PAs, not to talk of members of the State House of Assembly, not to talk of members of the national assembly, not to talk of commissioners. Imagine the Special Advisers having SAs. These are wastages. They are luxuries. Our founding fathers didn't use to have that. I know of some government houses now where buildings are lying fallow. These are wastages. So the government can stop wastage.
In fact, if I have my way, one of the things that should be stopped in this country is this idea of security vote. I was a civil servant and I held positions where I knew how the so-called security vote is operated. It's not subject to auditing. It's legalized looting of public funds; legalized looting of public funds because you cannot see anything tangible that is done with that money. But if it cannot be stopped completely, it should be regulated. There should be laws regulating the operation, establishment and operation of the so-called security vote. If it cannot be audited publicly, it should be audited confidentially. At least the National Assembly or the State Houses of Assembly should have a right to know how the so-called security vote is expended. These are part of the areas we should look into.
I talked about cutting down on waste. If they cannot boycott the boycottables, which should be done, we just have to cut down on the importation of luxury goods. Let me give you an instance as it happened with Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Before 1959, the Action Group was the most flamboyant party in Nigeria. In those days, when we were young, the Action Group had what I may call their own anthem. When they went for campaigns, the first thing that you would hear is Osi ni o p’akuko, egbe olowo legbe Awolowo, osi ni o p’akuko. In those days, the symbol of NCNC was the cock while the symbol of the Action Group was the palm tree. The AG would chide the NCNC that they were a poor party. The Action Group members would go to campaigns in very big agbada - sanyan, the most costly native textile of the time. All of them! It was the Action Group that introduced the use of Chevrolet cars, Pontiac, the very longish American vehicles of that time; real flamboyance, real affluence. That was what Action Group was known for.
But in 1959, when there was going to be this election, the first general election in Nigeria, the 1959 election, the Action Group quickly adopted democratic socialism. Because Chief Obafemi Awolowo foresaw that Nigeria would not be able to cope with that kind of flamboyance for which they were known for too long, he adopted democratic socialism and its lifestyle with himself on the frontline. He stopped wearing agbada. So, a lot of people today know Awolowo for wearing a jumper. No, Awolowo was not wearing a jumper before 1959. But when he foresaw that there was a need for austerity, the Action Group adopted democratic socialism as a philosophy. And a manifesto was built on that.
So, if today too, we have foreseen, not even foreseen again, we have seen that we cannot continue with this luxury, then we should adopt democratic socialism. Austerity measures; starting with us. The change begins with me. That's what the government should do. They should demonstrate it. The president should demonstrate austerity. The governor should demonstrate austerity. The National Assembly members should demonstrate austerity. House of Assembly, all office holders, and public office holders should demonstrate austerity. That is the only time you can preach to us and say continue to endure. It will soon be okay. You are not enduring. And you are asking the public to endure.
At the National Assembly, the Senate wanted to go on recess and they were announcing they gave something for members to make their journey smooth. But what are you doing for us to have our own smooth journey too? You are having a smooth journey and you say we should continue to have a rough journey. People will not listen. So the government has to take certain steps. If those steps are taken, I believe that there is a future.
Perhaps you want to take a look at the composition of President Tinubu’s cabinet. Most Nigerians complained about the inclusion of some governors. How do you see the composition vis-à-vis expectations of Nigeria?
As far as I am concerned, the cabinet is a good one. If you look at the antecedents of each of the ministers, you will see that in their own rights, many of them are qualified, in terms of academics, in terms of exposure, in terms of experience, in terms of performance. You see, it is not easy or, it is not even possible to please everybody. The governors among them, in their respective states, whether they met the expectations of their people or not, I cannot say from here. But looking at them from afar, if a governor didn't perform, he was there for four years, he didn't perform, you re-elected him for another four years and you say he didn't perform. If he didn't perform, why did you re-elect him? So, we ourselves have to look at ourselves. We get what we want. When it is time for election, the average Nigerian doesn't ask for ability or capability. No.
The psyche of an average Nigerian, when it comes to elections, what you will hear is: am I going to vote on an empty stomach? And once they give you whatever they give, in terms of vote buying, you’ve sold yourself off. Well, if somebody wants to buy a vote from you and you don't sell it, will he force you? If he wants to buy and you sell, then that is his bargain. You have no right anymore to ask for his services because he has bought the thing from you. So we should look at that as a completely different area.
The governors, yes. Take, for instance, Governor Umahi from Eboyin State. From what we can see, from what these people are saying, he really performed. He's a performer. He's an engineer. He's a competent engineer. And we need such people who have the competence and can perform. Look at Wike. He performed. There are other governors that performed. So you cannot say because somebody was a governor at one time or the other, he can no longer hold any other office. No, no. I don't buy that.
But look at some individuals. See the person who is a minister from Kwara, Lateef Fagbemi. Can anybody query the competence or capability of Fagbemi as a lawyer? In fact, today when they were reading the CV, the swearing-in was done today. And when you hear the CV, of each of these people, you say yes, they are good.
But it's one thing to have all the qualifications. It's another thing to be able to perform on the job. But you cannot say what a person will do. There is this old song, Que sera sera: Whatever will be, will be. The future is not ours to see. When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, what will I be/ Will I be pretty? Will I be rich?/Here's what she said to me/ Qué será, será/Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. That’s the song. Nobody can say what tomorrow is. So you cannot say how a person will behave when he gets to office. All you can do is look at the credentials. All things being equal, as the economist will say, looking at these people, all things being equal, they are good materials for the job. Secondly, the cabinet is a good mix. There are governors there, there are politicians there, there are technocrats there, there are teachers there, there are farmers. So, it's a good mix as far as I'm concerned. Let's now hope that they will live up to expectations. So that's the cabinet as far as I'm concerned.
Let’s look at Kwara State. Governor Abdulrazaq has been re-elected for a second term in office. What is your assessment of his first tenure and what do you expect him to do better in his second tenure?
You see, the best and most reliable yardstick for measuring whether a governor lived up to expectations or not, is the vote during the election for the second term. If the governor didn't perform, why did the people vote overwhelmingly for him and his party to give him second a term? So that means that in the assessment of the people, he performed. So if an individual says he didn't perform, well, that's the individual opinion. But the collective opinion, which under normal circumstances is what the result of the election should reflect, shows that he performed.
I do not want to give a contrary opinion to the consensus opinion of the electorate of Kwara. But if you are now asking what do I expect him to do in the second term? I expect him to do two things. One, the governor should please carry the people along. Let him govern with the collective wisdom of the people. That's number one.
The governor should have a way of monitoring the performances of his lieutenants, by which I mean the commissioners. He should be monitoring. Three, there should be accountability. If what people are saying and what we are seeing is anything to go by, the integrity of the governmental actors, including the governor, the commissioners, including the civil servants, their actions are not much to write home about. So the governor should have a way of monitoring what is happening. Are the people getting value for the money that is being expended? It is one thing for a government to vote money for something, it’s another thing for the people to get value for the money that was expended for and on their behalf. The governor should look seriously into that, seriously.
Besides, the quality of people being put into positions is very important. We need to look at the capability of the people we are putting in offices. Whether somebody is related to the governor or not, if that person has what it takes to move the state forward, the governor should tap that person. And no matter the closeness of anybody to the governor, if that person does not have what it takes to perform, the governor should not appoint such people into office. The governmental offices should not be based on favouritism.
Is the Governor getting the right advice from the party elders?
I think you should have put the question the other way. Are the elders giving him the right advice? If the elders give him the right advice, were they of benefit to him? Obasanjo once said it when he was appointing his advisor. He said: You are advisors. You are to advise me. You are not to command me. I am free to take or not take your advice. Maybe you should have said: Is the governor taking or was the governor taking? Don't say was he getting it. Was he taking it? Of course, we know they would have advised him. The right advice has to be there in the first instance. Then the second phase is taking the advice. I know that the elders tried to give advice as much as they were able, they had the opportunity to do so.
Whether those pieces of advice were taken or not taken, I am not in a position to answer that question. But I have already said it, the governor should carry the people along this time around. Listen to advice. I said it earlier on that governance is not a one-man show. No matter how wise you think you are, no matter how competent you think you are, you can't do it alone. That's why it’s written in the Nigerian constitution that you must appoint a commissioner at the state level from each local government area. At the national level, you must appoint a minister from each state to constitute the executive committee to run the nation.
In our collective wisdom as Nigerians, we know that governance cannot be a one-man show. Then, when you have a governor or a president, he should see himself more as first among equals, not master-servant relationships. The constitution of Nigeria does not create a situation of master-servant relationship between the president and the ministers or the governors and the commissioners or whatever. So if there is not this master servant relationship people will not be afraid to give honest advice. In the 70s - between 1973 and 1974- I was Deputy Secretary to the Kwara State Executive Council during the Bamgboye administration. This was a time when people like the father of the present governor of Kwara State were members of the state executive; when people like Yahaya Madawaki, Dr Raymond Adelaye Isa Obaro, Ogbeha, and so on and so forth were there. These are people who didn't see their appointment as commissioners as a favour. They saw it as an opportunity to render service and they would tell the governor to his face: Ah sorry, Your Excellency. This thing you want to do is not good. Sorry, Your Excellency this thing you say you don't want to do is what we should do.
And they would argue their way out and the governor at the end would say yeah. Let me give you a typical example. I was in the cabinet as a deputy secretary to the executive council when the memo for the establishment of a state television in Kwara was tabled. A lot of members of the state executive council then opposed the idea of establishing a television station. They said it was a luxury because at that time WNTV was adequately covering Kwara. A number of members of the executive council said no, it's not a luxury. Information is not a luxury. And I remember what one of them said. I have not forgotten since then. I will not mention the name of the particular person. That person said if you leave your people uneducated, and uninformed, you are leaving room for them to be mis-educated and misinformed. And that member of the executive said supposing a situation arises where there is a dispute between Kwara State and the Western State and the Western State government uses WNTV to disseminate disinformation against Kwara, what will Kwara use to counter them? And the governor said yes, you are right. Approved. Let's have it. And that's how they ordered all the equipment for Kwara TV. Where NTA is using now was what the Kwara State Government built for the Kwara TV. The OB van which NTA was using until a few years ago some other equipment were ordered by the Bamgboye administration. They were just to install and commission the station when the coup happened. If we didn't have all those equipment and all the buildings down, NTA wouldn't have come at that material time.
But what I want to bring out here is that some people stood their ground there. The governor himself felt that it was a luxury and some people argued against it. I was there. It's not that they told me.
You talked about some people who knew their onions; men who were capable of distinguishing between right and wrong and were ready to stand by their beliefs. The impression people have today is that a lot of governors appoint yes-men because they come to power with preconceived ulterior motives...
You see, every water, as they say, will find the line of least resistance. Don't you hear that? Water finds the line of least resistance. That's the line it will follow. No governor or no head will deliberately appoint somebody who he knows will not let him have his way. Nobody. That is why Tinubu has appointed people he thinks he can work with. You always want to have people you think you can work with. But then, you have your goal and you work with people to achieve a goal. If you bring in a novice, because you can work with that novice, the input of the novice will be nil. You don't bring in a dunce because you think you can work with the dunce to be your adviser. So, it's now left to the governor or whoever it is, to appoint somebody who will help him or her to achieve the goal. But that goal must be in the first place, in the public interest. Let the governor or the president or whoever it is have the goal of public interest. Have the goal of good governance. Then you bring in people who can help you to achieve that goal. Whether they are friends or not, if they can help you to achieve the goal, then you will be friends. You will be partners in progress. You will be friends in progress. So you bring people whose thinking about achieving public interests aligns with your own.
Do you think President Tinubu is right in his action toward the coupists in Niger considering the outcry that followed the decision to toe the line of the ECOWAS leaders, even when Nigeria is grappling with her internal headaches? What are your suggestions for tackling the problem in Niger?
Personally, I do not like military rule at all because it is the military that truncated our democracy and development in Nigeria. They did so many things. They politicize the public service whereby we now have a situation where a level 12 officer is appointed permanent secretary over and above his or her seniors who are on level 17. They killed morale in the public service, killed discipline in the public service and Institutionalised corruption.
How rich was Tafawa Balewa, the prime minister? He was prime minister from 1957 to 1966. What property did he leave behind? How rich was Sadauna? Even Awolowo, who was rich before he became the Premier. He was rich enough to establish Tribune as far back as 1949 or thereabout. How much wealth did he acquire for himself? How much wealth did Zik have? And Zik was rich before he became President. He did not become much richer than he was by the time he left office. He was Premier, Governor General and he was president. Today, ordinary councillors, and ordinary chairmen of local governments, have rows of houses. They have petrol stations. They have shopping centres and all that kind of thing. Things that were unthinkable. The military brought all that nonsense. Apart from the fact that they are dictatorial, they do things with impunity.
Now, you are asking of Tinubu as Chairman of ECOWAS. Don't forget his background: that Tinubu was a pro-democracy activist. Don't forget that. He fought military rule in Nigeria. So do you expect him not to fight military rule in Niger? That is his nature already. Then, he is now in ECOWAS. Nigeria is in ECOWAS. Nigeria is bound by the decisions of ECOWAS. To complicate matters, the head of state of Nigeria is the chairman of ECOWAS. So he cannot go in the opposite direction.
What most Nigerians are saying is that he should consider the home front before outside. Looking at the situation in Nigeria today, can we afford to take on another war? That's what they are saying.
But he cannot act outside of the ECOWAS. Nigeria itself cannot act outside the ECOWAS because the sub-region looks to Nigeria for leadership. And that is why they deliberately made the head of state of Nigeria the chairman of ECOWAS, otherwise, it shouldn't have been our turn, anymore. Buhari just left the scene and we are succeeding ourselves. That shows the amount of respect, the amount of confidence that ECOWAS members have in Nigeria. We cannot afford to let them down.
Then, let's come to the situation in Niger. Left to me, the military has no business taking over government. In fact, the military is now making it a birthright that they can seize power. Why? Because we employed them, that is, the nation employed them and gave them arms. Did we give them arms to take over the government? No. There is no such thing in the law or in the constitution. But they have now taken it as a birthright. And we ourselves also join in saying the military should take over. The military can take over. Why? Everybody has his own job for which he is paid. We don't pay the military to take over government. No. We take them to defend the country against external aggression. But the reality is that the military does take over government. They have taken over Niger, as they did in Mali, Burkina Faso and in Sudan.
If ECOWAS in its own collective wisdom thinks that enough is enough, we should put an end. We should let the military know their constitutional limitations and confine themselves to their constitutional role, good luck to them. But, if you now talk of the military option that they want to adopt, it's not Nigeria alone now, the ECOWAS countries that want to adopt military option, have they fully assessed the implications?
I said earlier that every governmental policy and decision or programme has socio-political and environmental impacts. Have they assessed the environmental impact that war will have on each of the countries that share borders with Nigeria? Have they assessed the environmental impact that foreign intervention on either side or on both sides of the battle line will create? The Nigeriens, those that are pro-military junta, are already hailing Russia. They are condemning France, Britain and America. Already they are pitching the two world powers against each other. If they come and fight there, directly or indirectly, two elephants will be fighting, will the grass not suffer? Is it not the grass that will bear the brunt? And who are these grasses now? The people of Niger and those who share borders with Niger.
To complicate matters, both Burkina Faso and Mali have said that any attack on Niger is an attack on them. It's a declaration of war on them. Can we afford that kind of war in West Africa today? Some of these countries are the poorest in the world.
All the countries sharing borders with Niger have internal crises of insurgency. Will that not aggravate the insecurity situation? Take the borders between these countries. The communities are interwoven. They intermingle. Now, if there is war, will it not affect our border communities? In Nigeria in particular, about six states are sharing borders with Niger, which means that six states will be at the war front. If we want to invade Niger, if ECOWAS wants to invade Niger from Nigeria, they have to pass through these states. If Niger has to repel them, it will repel them into these states. Have we really assessed this thing? So, much as I am against military rule, and I do not oppose ECOWAS taking steps to ensure that we put an end to this bluff; this arrogance, or effrontery by the military against the civil rule, I strongly advise that the military option should be the last resort. And that's even putting it mildly. I would have said to rule it out. Rule out a military option. Let's adopt other options.
It is in the news that the sanction is already biting hard. Yesterday, the head of the military junta was saying that the sanction was inhuman. That means they are feeling the pain. So if you can press a little further along that line, let them come and say, okay, look, this hunger is too much. Okay, come, let's sit down and talk. But using the gun, I am very reluctant to support it.
Comments powered by CComment