The president as chief diplomat

I read an interesting article recently in which the author, objecting to President Muhammadu Buhari’s frequent travels abroad pointed out that Presidential spokespersons since 1999, including this writer, have always justified such trips using essentially the same arguments. The fellow quoted copiously and derisively from my State House press statements and an article by me titled “The Gains of Jonathan’s Diplomacy”.

President Muhammadu Buhari departs on a 3-day official visit to Kenya

Those who object to Presidential travels abroad do so for a number of reasons: (a) the cost on the grounds of frequency and size of estacode-collecting delegation, with multiple officers performing the same function tagging along on every trip, (b) the need to make better use of diplomats in foreign missions and Foreign Ministry officials who can act in delegated capacity; (c) the failure to see the immediate and long-term gains of Presidential junket, thus creating the impression of a jamboree or mindless tourism, and (d) the conviction that the President needs to stay at home to address urgent domestic challenges, rather than live out of a suitcase, in the air. While these reasons may seem understandable, arising as they are from anxieties about reducing wastage and increasing governmental efficiency for the people’s benefit, I still insist that Presidential trips are important, and that by travelling abroad, the President is performing a perfectly normal function.

We may, however, complain about abuses and the reduction of an important function to tourism for after all, in eight years, President Bill Clinton of the United States travelled only 54 times – only by Nigerian standards, but we must also admit that the President is the country’s chief diplomat. In our constitutional democracy, he is the main articulator and implementer of the country’s foreign policy. He appoints ambassadors who function in their various posts as his representatives. He also receives other country’s ambassadors. Emissaries from other countries or multilateral organizations consider their visits incomplete without an audience with the President, and it is his message that they take back home.

He visits other Presidents and he also gets visited by other world leaders; an interaction that provides him an opportunity to give effect to Section 19 of the 1999 Constitution which defines the objectives of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. In doing this, he is expected to strengthen relationships with other countries, at government to government and people to people levels in the national interest.

The President is also the country’s chief spokesperson, and that is why what he says, or what he does when he is negotiating within the international arena on Nigeria’s behalf is of great consequence, and this is particularly why on at least two occasions recently, Nigerians were inconsolably upset when their President chose a foreign stage to put down his own country, and people. This clarification of the role of the President as the country’s chief diplomat may sound didactic, and I apologise if it comes across as pedantic, but this is necessary for the benefit of those who may be tempted to assume that the job of a President is to sit in one place at home and act as a mechanic and ambulance chaser. The concerns that have been expressed however point to something far more complex, and I seek to now problematize aspects of it.

One of the concerns often expressed is that the trips that have been made by our Presidents since 1999 look too much alike. It is as if every President that shows up, embarks on exactly the same junket to the same locations, for the same reasons: foreign direct investment, agriculture, security, co-operation, etc. etc. accompanied by a large retinue that includes many of the same officials who travelled with the former President and had prepared the same MOUs that will be signed again, with the new spokespersons telling us the same story all over again.

Nigerians are therefore not impressed with the seeming conversion of the country’s foreign policy process into a money-guzzling ritual. This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Whereas our foreign policy objective talks about national interest, what constitutes that national interest has been blurry and chameleonic in the last 55 years and more so since the return to civilian rule in 1999. National interest has been replaced majorly by personal interest and it is the worst tragedy that can befall a country’s foreign policy process. We run a begin-again foreign relations framework because every new President wants to make his own mark. The second point is that he is compelled to do so because in any case, we do not have a strong institution to follow up on existing agreements. The international community knows this quite well, and more serious nations being more strategic and determined in the pursuit of their own interests will bombard a new Nigerian President with invitations to visit. They also know that a new President in Nigeria is likely to cancel or suspend existing agreements or contracts being executed by their nationals. The uncertainty that prevails in Nigeria is so well known, such that the gains recorded by one administration are not necessarily institutionalized.

We may have thus reduced foreign policy to individual heroism, which is sad, but institutions and human capital within this arena are critical. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, once a glorious institution is a shadow of its old self. The politicization of that Ministry has done great damage. When a President visits a country, and enters into agreements that result in Memoranda of Understanding, it is expected that there will be follow up action to be taken by officials either through Bilateral Commissions (where they exist between Nigeria and the respective country) or the issuance of instruments of ratification, leading to due implementation. Nigeria signs all kinds of documents but so many details and agreements are left unattended to. There is too much politics in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and too much rivalry between career foreign affairs personnel and the politicians who do not allow them to function as professionals. This has to stop, otherwise every new President has to start again and embark on trips that should have been taken care of at the level of bilateral commissions or the ministry.

Career foreign affairs personnel are critical to the shaping of foreign policy. They are the agents through which states communicate with each other, negotiate, and sustain relationships. The only thing they complain about in that Ministry is lack of money. It is the same with the Missions abroad. Give them money, but there is always a greater need for professionalism, which makes the diplomats of Nigeria’s golden era so sad. The foreign policy process also works better when there is Inter-Ministerial and Intra-governmental collaboration. The tendency in Nigeria is for every department of government to operate as an independent foreign policy unit. Government officials get invited to functions by foreign embassies, without clearance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they just troop there to eat free food, but they never keep their mouths shut. Nigerian officials are probably the most talkative in the world and with foreigners, they will offer their mother’s life history to make them appear important. That is not how to run foreign relations. There must be control, co-ordination, discipline, clarity and sanctions.

Every world leader wants to meet the Nigerian President. Nigeria is a strategic market and a very cheap one too, a source of raw materials and a dumping ground for finished products, with a consumptive population. Our balance sheet in all our relationships is unbalanced even in Africa, which we once described as the centerpiece of our foreign policy. We have toyed with many slogans: dynamic diplomacy, economic diplomacy, concentric circles of medium powers, citizen diplomacy, transformational diplomacy, what else/- the Buharideens are yet to come up with their own, but you wait, they will soon come up with something- really, the truth is that Nigeria’s foreign policy process is not strategic or competitive enough.

Within Africa, it is driven by too much kindness rather than enlightened self-interest, or deliberate search for sustainable advantages. A Donatus mentality has seen Nigeria over the years looking out for its African neighbours, donating money, supporting their causes, but Nigeria has gained little from this charity-driven diplomacy. Many of the countries we have helped to build openly despise us at international meetings, they struggle for positions with Nigeria, they humiliate our citizens in diaspora, and when they return later to beg for vehicles, or money to pay their civil servants or run elections, we still oblige them. The attempt in recent years to review all of this, and be more strategic should be sustained.

We must wield the carrot and the stick more often. American Presidents don’t just visit other countries, they make statements and often alter the course of history with their mere presence as Kennedy did with his visit to Berlin in 1963, Nixon in China in 1972, Jimmy Carter going to Iran in 1977, George Bush, visiting Mexico in 2001, and Obama in Cuba in 2016. In the international arena, we give the impression that we are ready to jump at any and every invitation in order to be seen to be friendly, but we tend to overdo this. Foreign Affairs Ministry officials who want to be seen to be doing something will always try to convince the President to embark on all trips. The dream of every Ambassador on foreign posting is also to have his President visit, even if once during his or her tenure. The resident Ambassador is happy, the Foreign Affairs folks get quality eye-time with the President but the hosts look at us and wonder what is wrong with our country signing the same agreements with the emergence of every President and not being able to act.

It does not help either that with every new President, we talk about reviewing Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. We are probably the only country in the world that is always reviewing Foreign Policy and informing the whole world. That should be the routine work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, with inputs from the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), the Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA), and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Foreign Affairs.

We must never lose sight of a necessary linkage between domestic policy and foreign policy. What exactly is in it for the average Nigerian, for the Nigerian economy and for Nigeria? Do we have the capacity to maximize gains from foreign interactions? Always, the real challenge lies in getting our acts together and tying up the loose ends in terms of sustainable policy choices, infrastructure, culture, leadership, and strategic engagement.

The president as chief diplomat

Who governs Nigeria? - Reuben Abati

During the Jonathan administration, an outspoken opposition spokesperson had argued that Nigeria was on auto-pilot, a phrase that was gleefully even if ignorantly echoed by an excitable opposition crowd. Deeper reflection should have made it clear even to the unthinking that there is no way any country can ever be on auto-pilot, for there are many levels of governance, all working together and cross-influencing each other to determine the structure of inputs and outcomes in society. To say that a country is on auto-pilot is to assume wrongly that the only centre of governance that exists is the official corridor, whereas governance is far more complex. The question should be asked, now as then: who is governing Nigeria? Who is running the country? Why do we blame government alone for our woes, whereas we share a collective responsibility, and some of the worst violators of the public space are not even in public office?

Dr Reuben Abati

The President of the country is easily the target of every criticism. This is perhaps understandable to the extent that what we have in Nigeria is the perfect equivalent of an Imperial Presidency. Whoever is President of Nigeria wields the powers of life and death, depending on how he uses those enormous powers attached to his office by the Constitution, convention and expectations. Nigeria’s President not only governs, he rules. The kind of President that emerges at any particular time can determine the fortunes of the country. It helps if the President is driven by a commitment to make a difference, but the challenge is that every President invariably becomes a prisoner.

He has the loneliest job in the land, because he is soon taken hostage by officials and various interests, struggling to exercise aspects of Presidential power vicariously. And these officials do it right to the minutest detail: they are the ones who tell the President that he is best thing ever since the invention of toothpaste. They are the ones who will convince him as to every little detail of governance: who to meet, where to travel to, and who to suspect or suspend. The President exercises power, the officials and the partisans in the corridors exercise influence. But when things go wrong, it is the President that gets the blame. He is reminded that the buck stops at his desk.

We should begin to worry about these dangerous officials in the system, particularly within the public service, the reckless mind readers who exploit the system for their own ends, and who walk free when the President gets all the blame. To govern properly, every government not only needs a good man at the top, but good officials who will serve the country. We are not there yet. The same civil servants who superintended over the omissions of the past 16 years are the ones still going up and down today, and it is why something has changed but nothing has changed. The reality is terrifying.

The officials at the state levels are no different, from the governor down to the local government chairman and their staff. They hardly get as much criticism as the folks in Abuja, but they are busy every day governing Nigeria, and doing so very badly too. Local government chairmen and their officials do almost nothing. The governors also try to act as if they are Imperial Majesties. The emphasis on ceremony rather than actual performance is the bane of governance in Nigeria. Everyone seems to be obsessed with ceremony and privileges.

A friend sent me a picture he took with the Mayor of London inside a train, in the midst of ordinary citizens and asked if that would ever happen in Nigeria. The Mayor had no bodyguards. He was on his own. In the Netherlands, the Prime Minister is a part-time lecturer in one of the local colleges. Nigerian pubic officials are often too busy to have time for normal life. Even if they want to live normally, the system also makes it impossible. We need people in government living normal lives. Leaders need not be afraid of the people they govern. They must identify with them. There is too much royalty in government circles in Nigeria. No matter how well-intentioned you may be, once you find yourself in their midst, you will soon start acting and sounding like one, because it is the only language that is spoken in those corridors.

Elsewhere, ideas govern countries. People become leaders on the basis of ideas and they govern with ideas. That is why the average voter in Europe or North America knows that what he votes for is what he is likely to get. Clearly in the on-going Presidential nomination process in the United States, every voter knows the difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump on the Republican side. Such differences are often blurry in Nigeria: our politics is driven by partisan interests; a primordial desperation for power, not ideas. It is also why Nigerian politicians can belong to five different political parties and movements within a decade.

Even when men of ideas show up in the political arena, they are quickly reminded that they are not politicians and do not understand politics. Gross anti-intellectualism is a major problem that Nigeria would have to address at some stage. Some of the administrations in the past who had brainy men and women of ideas in strategic positions ended up not using them. They were either frustrated, caged, co-opted or forced to adapt or shown the door. The question is often asked: why don’t such people walk away? The answer that is well known in official corridors is this: doing so may be a form of suicide. Once inside, you are not allowed to walk out on the Federal Government of Nigeria, and if you must, not on your own terms. So, governance fails even at that level of values: that other important element that governs progressive nations.

Partisan interests are major factors in the governance process. These seem to be the dominant factor in Nigeria, but again, they are irresponsibly deployed. The crowd of political parties, religious groups, traditional rulers, ethnic and community associations, professional associations, pastors, priests, traditional rulers, imams and alfas, shamanists, native doctors, soothsayers and traditional healers: they all govern. They wield enormous influence. But they have never helped Nigeria and they are not helping. All the people in public offices have strong links to all these other governors of Nigeria, but what kind of morality do they discuss? Those with partisan interests, including even promoters of Non-Governmental groups (NGOs) all have one interest at heart: power and relevance.

The same priests who saw grand visions for the PDP and its members over a 16-year period are still in business seeing visions and making predictions. Those who claim to be so powerful they can make the lame walk and the blind see have not deemed it necessary to step forward to help the NNPC turn water into petrol. If any of these miracle-delivering pastors can just turn the Lagos Lagoon alone into a river of petrol, all Nigerians will become believers, but that won’t happen because they are committed to a different version of the gospel. As for the political parties: they are all in disarray.

The private sector also governs Nigeria. But what is the quality of governance in the corporate sector? The Nigerian corporate elite are arrogant. They claim that they create jobs so the country may prosper, but they are, in reality, a rent-seeking class. They survive on government patronage, access to the Villa and its satellites, and claims of indispensability. But without government, most private sector organisations will be in distress. The withdrawal of public funds into a Treasury Single Account is a case in point. And with President Muhammadu Buhari not readily available to the eye-service wing of the Nigerian private sector, former sycophants in the corridors are clandestinely resorting to sabotage and blackmail. A responsible private sector has a duty in society: to build society, not to donate money to politicians during elections and seek patronage thereafter. And if it must co-operate with government, it must be for much nobler reasons in the public interest.

The military are still governing Nigeria too. They may be in the background, but their exit 16 years ago, has not quite translated into a loss of influence or presence. In the early years of their de-centering, many of them chose to join politics and replace their uniforms with traditional attires. Their original argument is that if other professionals can join politics, then a soldier should not be excluded. They failed to add that the military class in politics in Africa has shown a tendency to exercise proprietorial rights and powers, which delimit the democratic project. In Nigeria such powers and rights have been exercised consistently and mostly by, happily for us, a gerontocratic class, whose impact, I believe, will be determined by the effluxion of time.

And it is like this: the President that emerged in 1999 was a soldier: the received opinion was that only such a strong man could stabilise the country. His successor was the brother of another old soldier; he and his Deputy were personally chosen by the departing President. He died in office, but for his Deputy to succeed him, it helped a lot that he was also a favorite of the General who chose his own successors. When this protégé fell out with the General, in retrospect now, a miscalculation, the General turned Godfather swore to remove him from office. And it happened. In 2015, another former soldier and strong man had to be brought back to office and power. When anything goes wrong, a class of old Generals is the one who steps forward to protect and guide the country. The only saving grace is that they do not yet have a successor–class of similarly influential men with military pedigree. But when their time passes, would there be equally strong civilians who can act as protectors of the nation?

The media governs too. But the media in Nigeria today is heavily politicised, compromised and a victim of internal censorship occasioned by hubris. Can the media still save Nigeria? It is in the same pit as the Nigerian voter, foreign interests, the legislature and the judiciary. But when there is positive change at all of these centres of power and influence, only then will there be change, movement and motion, and a new Nigeria.

Who governs Nigeria? - Reuben Abati

Senator Ben Bruce: The Made In Nigeria Campaign by Reuben Abati

There has been renewed talk lately about the need for Nigerians to patronize locally made goods, (someone should have added… and services!). Championed by Senator Ben Murray Bruce, and supported by the Senate President Bukola Saraki, the Minister of State for Industry, Trade and Investment, Hajia Aisha Abubakar and a large crowd of online campaigners, so much ink, saliva, and emotions have been invested in this old, and perhaps boring story.

Dr Reuben Abati

Senator Bruce, who goes by the moniker “the Commonsense Senator” even introduced a hashtag #BuyNaijaToGrowtheNaira. He hasn’t quite explained the connection, but with the exchange rate melting down and the Naira yo-yoing, everyone including our neighbourhood electrician, and his friend, the battery charger, have both become experts on the fortunes of the national currency. Senator Saraki has promised that the Public Procurement Act will be amended by the 8th National Assembly to make it mandatory for the government to patronize locally made goods. Minister Aisha Abubakar has proposed a “Patronise Naija Products Campaign.”

It all sounds so familiar but what has triggered this latest effusion of patriotism was a Made in Aba Trade Fair in Abuja, where locally made products including shoes were displayed and purchased by the snobby class now acting as great promoters of Nigerian identity and entrepreneurship. Senator Bruce and the National Assembly have also purchased made in Nigeria vehicles from Innoson Motors, a local vehicle manufacturing company. The interest that this has generated is good publicity for Innoson Motors, and it will probably provide good justification for the National assembly purchasing more vehicles. It is also an excellent advertisement for local entrepreneurship. There was a time in this country when the phrase Aba-made was meant to be denigrating, but today, corporate suits and other items made in Aba have made it to the status of a Trade Fair.

We must be reminded nonetheless, that this buy Nigeria campaign, or proudly Nigerian, as it was once called, has been promoted in one form or the other for more than 30 years. At a time, Federal Ministers chose to wear Ankara fabrics, which is supposed to be locally made, and at another time, the Federal Government only patronized Peugeot Motors, which then had a thriving car manufacturing company in Kaduna. Virtually every government has tried to promote Nigerian goods. And there is certainly no doubt that there is a lot of entrepreneurial talent out there in Nigeria, a gift for innovation and a capacity to aspire.

Given the right, enabling environment, Nigerians are willing to help government promote the objectives of diversification, backward integration, and non-oil exports which are at the root of all this talk about made in Nigeria. The YouWin exhibitions held between 2014 and 2015, showed great potential, especially in the agriculture and food sector, and the need for government to encourage entrepreneurship and manufacturing. But lessons were also learnt, and it is the same lessons that should guide the current patriotic excitement over locally made goods. In the end, Senator Bruce, patriotism is not enough, lest it turns us all as someone warned into “scoundrels”, seeking economic restoration without the right strategy and attitude.

The first lesson is that we need to truly encourage the transformation of Nigeria into a primary, productive market, and not a secondary market for the dumping of goods. We may be celebrating the fact that some Nigerians are making the effort to produce goods locally, but really how much of that local production is local? I can bet that the leather that is used for the shoes we are being encouraged to buy is not produced in Nigeria. Our local entrepreneurs import leather, manage to produce something labeled Nigerian, when in fact the entire value chain could have been truly local? Innoson Motors is well known in government circles, but have we measured how much of those Innoson vehicles is actually local? 30%?

Before Innoson, we had Omatek and Zinnox computers, advertised as made in Nigeria goods. But where in this country do we have young technicians producing computer chips and other components? We need to take a second look at the concept: made in Nigeria, and be sure that we are actually talking about the same thing. What is the answer? I think government must in the long run insist that those who seek to sell in the Nigerian market, must set up their factories here, and produce for the Nigerian market inside Nigeria. We have all the raw materials that may be needed, and we have the market, the biggest in Africa.

People come here, take our raw materials to other factories in other parts of the world, send back the products and then make profit iat our expense. We end up creating jobs in other parts of the world, and receive finish products that could have been produced here. No. If Toyota and Nissan want to sell cars in Nigeria, then they must produce the cars inside Nigeria and source their materials and labour majorly from here, and brand the vehicles Made in Nigeria and export them to other parts of the world. In recent years, there was such discussion with Hyundai and Volkswagen. Minister Aisha Abubakar should look at the records. Innoson can then compete with Toyota Nigeria, Nissan Nigeria, Hyundai Nigeria and Volkswagen Nigeria. The same argument goes for every other product in need of direct investment. The point is not about being local; it is about developing the capacity to turn Nigeria into a world-class production and economic centre.

The second lesson has to do with quality and standards. The recent debate has been about indigenous patronage as a test of patriotism. I don’t think that is the right focus. People like quality. In a capitalist system, they will make their own decisions and choices with the capital at their disposal. And we shouldn’t be talking as if Nigerians should produce made in Nigeria goods to be consumed only by Nigerians, whether good or bad. The vision, consistent with the ambition of the authors of the country’s various development plans, is to produce world-class products inside Nigeria. What we have seen is that locally made goods often fall short of international standards. They lack the competitive edge.

It is good to buy Aba-made, but our ladies who are used to Hermes and Louis Vuitton are not likely to trade their designer bags for Nnamdi bags, except the latter can compete and become a global brand. It has been reported that many Nigerian goods sent for export are often rejected overseas, for such simple reasons as packaging or basic standards. No amount of patriotism can by-pass that. We have a Standards Organisation of Nigeria and an Export Promotion Council: what is the synergy between them and the various SMEs striving to break into the export market?

The third lesson is that government must just make up its mind about this whole thing about the diversification of the Nigerian economy. It is not the responsibility of one government or administration; it is a process that should move Nigeria from being a democracy observing electoral commission rituals, into a developmental state. We were almost there under the military quite ironically, but then the military also lost it due to bad attitudes.

Once upon a time in this country, there was regular electricity, manufacturing companies, both local and foreign thrived, salaries and pensions were paid as at when due, potable water was available, the leaders sounded as if the Nigerian people and their welfare were important and there was a suffocating vision of Nigeria being the “giant of Africa”.

When students graduated from universities, teacher training colleges, and nursing schools, they were sure of immediate employment, which brought them life-long fulfilment. Brilliant students got special scholarships; every student got a bursary, our schools attracted students and teachers from every part of the world. And now, here we are wondering why? What happened? This collapse of the Nigerian standard is the worst thing to have ever happened. Younger ones may not even believe that indeed Chinua Achebe was right when he wrote that “there was once a country.”

The challenge can start with re-discovering that lost country and moving forward from that point. I mentioned services in addition to goods earlier. And I ask: how many Nigerians are satisfied with Nigerian services? Many families won’t even employ a Nigerian nanny or driver. They would rather look for people from Asia and West Africa. Builders won’t recruit Nigerian masons: they ‘d rather use artisans from Ghana or Togo. When foreign companies set up businesses in Nigeria, they bring staff from their own country, and violate the expatriate quota in collusion with our own people; they even import cement and other equipment from elsewhere and our officials look the other way. We don’t even respect ourselves as a nation. But we love slogans.

So, the matter is not as simple as just buying Nigerian goods. It is not about trending hashtags, slogans or propaganda, but a decision to move this country beyond the on-going knee-jerk, desperate elite war of position within the political spectrum, and see what can work for the people’s benefit. We want to buy made in Nigeria goods, and yet every start up business in this country is facing serious challenges; the more established manufacturing outfits are groaning. Every election season, the private sector pretends to support the political process, but once its chieftains are not allowed access, control or influence, they become closet saboteurs.

I consider that to be a subject in the heart of the future. What needs to be done is before our very eyes, but its starting point must include the education system. Very few parents these days still buy the services provided by Nigerian schools, the private ones that receive better patronage train the children to end up in foreign schools including schools in Ghana and Benin Republic. Nobody is training quality artisans either, because all the Government Technical Colleges of old have been shut down and many of our young men are more interested in kidnapping and riding okada. So, where are the critical young men and women and institutions to drive the renewal we seek? The matter is so complex; it is the reason I don’t envy anyone who is President of Nigeria.

Senator Ben Bruce: The Made In Nigeria Campaign by Reuben Abati

Don"t use me as scapegoat for your failure - Edwin Clark writes Abati

Below are excerpts from the open letter, dated October 26, 2015, by Chief Edwin Clark, replying former Special Adviser on Media to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Dr. Reuben Abati, and other critics over his recent comments on the former president.

Edwin Clark

ORDINARILY at my age and position in life, I should not have to justify myself in a press controversy on my voluntary decision to quit partisan politics particularly when this personal and well intended act has come under unfair politicization of persons of mediocre temperament. For a couple of days now, I have been more bemused than angry by the not-so-funny, but, predictably, negative ingenuity of Nigerians, aided by an equally incredulous media, to create unpleasant things out of nothing. It has been a circus of those convinced that they have found a peg to hang their own, disloyalty, failure, shallowness and hatred unto, a ball to kick around, over my statement, not for the first time, that I was quitting partisan politics and my statement about former President Goodluck Jonathan, for reasons so obvious that I cannot understand what the orgy of self-flagellation is all about.

I still believe that former President Jonathan performed creditably well in various areas.  I am very proud of him and so are millions of other Nigerians. He was good in so many areas, and did many good things for this nation. He resuscitated the railway system that was comatose for several decades; he engineered a robust economy for this nation; he fought against Polio and Ebola; maternal and child health; he did much for the power sector upon which President Muhammadu Buhari is now building; he tarred more roads than any of his predecessors; he turned agriculture to agro-business, a multibillion dollar business; he built the Almajiri schools in the Northern parts of this country; he established new federal universities across this nation; he allowed for free speech across this nation, and did not mind when he was criticised or, even, abused; people were not arbitrarily locked up in jail or prison, as he truly respected the rule of law; he signed the Freedom of Information Bill into law, which was not done by his predecessors; he modernised the aviation sector; he convoked a National Conference that brought Nigerians together and proffered recommendations on how to better bind Nigerians together as one; he sanitised the electoral system of this country, unlike what we had before him, when elections results were announced without actually voting, when ballot snatching were rampant and common place, he brought transparency into the electoral process, when people could vote and the votes actually  openly counted without violence. Today he stands as the first African president to concede an election to an opponent, even before the final counts. There are many more achievements to his record, but because of time and space let me end here for now. These are all lasting legacies that he has left behind. He has certainly set a precedent for others to follow.

But no human being is perfect; only God is perfect. Therefore, to mention an area of former President Jonathan’s inaction may not be out of place. Every leader in this world has their fault. President Jonathan cannot be an exception. As the late British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan observed in his autobiography, politicians do not regret their mistakes because they can always explain themselves; but they never forgive themselves for opportunities they have lost. For instance, President Barrack Obama of United States of America is frequently attacked for not having the political will to deal with Israel over the Palestinian question.

This does not mean that he lacks the capacity to take action against Israel effectively or to deal with the affairs of the United States of America or that he lacks integrity. Several years ago, the entire Western world was being accused of lacking political will to deal with Apartheid South Africa. This did not mean any inaction of the Western countries by the rest of the world. It only means that President Obama and the statesmen of the western world had other considerations in their minds in the interest of their countries.

In keeping with my character I cannot say in private what I cannot say in the public.  I do not therefore, reject or disown Jonathan as my beloved political son.

My open support for former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan

My support for President Goodluck Jonathan predates his presidency. It dates back to the period when he was the Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State. So for people who are thinking that I only knew Dr. Jonathan when he became the President or that I was one of his hangers on, I think there will be need to give them a little information. My relevance and leadership of my people as an elder statesman and a critical stakeholder in this Nigeria project far pre-dates Dr. Jonathan’s public life and presidency. I have been relevant in politics and I have served my people honestly and creditably well.  I became very close to Dr. Goodluck Jonathan when he was Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State. I was present in London when the late former Governor of Bayelsa State, the Governor General of the Ijaw Nation, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha (may his soul rest in perfect peace), was arrested in London on the prompting of the Nigerian government under President Olusegun Obasanjo because of his hatred for Chief Alamieyeseigha.  I had to cancel my flight to Nigeria at the London Airport when the news of the arrest of Chief Alamieyeseigha was conveyed to me by Ambassador Pereware from Paris. I went with a few well-meaning Nigerians to Essex where we had been informed that he was kept, but could not find him. We went to a few other places before we were able to locate where he was. I remained in London for one week with him to put in place machineries for his bail. I recall the large-heartedness of Lady Ann Iyoha who brought out the title deed of her property in London to secure his bail and also the magnanimity of another woman from Amasoma, the home town of Chief Alamiyeseigha in Bayelsa State.

When I returned to Nigeria, I went to Bayelsa State to meet with stakeholders to see that a peaceful transition of power take place whereby Dr. Jonathan who was the then Deputy Governor became the governor. Ambassador Godknows Igali became the Secretary to the State Government.

Of course, I openly supported President Jonathan not only as my son but also as the first person to emerge from the minorities of the Niger Delta as the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I had no choice but to support him and I have no regrets. My support is total and unyielding. If most of President Jonathan’s close associates and political leaders exhibited such support, by espousing all his achievements, rather than the pretence and betrayal they were engaged in, the story today would have been different.

It will be recalled that I had on several occasions openly criticised the former President in the press and in my statements for actions or inactions which were damaging to the President’s image while he was in office. When the President failed to check the excesses of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, which included his undue interference with the activities of the EFCC, I did not fail to speak my mind openly in opposition to the President. When the President did not deliver on his promise to complete the construction of the East-West Road, I did not fail to speak my mind openly.

I even told him publicly that he should not leave the South South people poorer than he met them. When the Governors Forum appeared to arrogate to itself powers that infringed upon those of the President in the Constitution of Nigeria with impunity, I did not fail to criticise. The press conferences and open letters I wrote which were carried and published by the various media houses are there to confirm this claim. However, with all these, my support for him was and still is total and unshakeable.

My relationship with Jonathan was not based on material gains

It is indeed most disingenuous to insinuate that my relationship with former President Jonathan was based on what benefits accrued to me. Far from the truth as I never benefited any material thing from President Jonathan in all his six years of President. With all modesty, I am at this age contented. I state publicly therefore, that I never sought nor obtained any contract, oil block, oil lifting allocation or financial gratification from the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) during his years of administration.

Similarly, I never solicited for appointments or special placements for any of my children or relations in any government or private concern on account of my relationship with President Jonathan. It is, therefore, ludicrous and totally ill-motived for these wicked and mischievous persons to sell to the public that my decision portends a plan to seek any special favours from President Muhammadu Buhari and his government, or to protect those gains which I acquired from President Jonathan’s government which never existed.

On the contrary, my public service in this country which spans over 60 years had given me the opportunity to seek the political, social and economic development of my people and Nigeria in general. I remain committed more than ever before to the economic, political and social emancipation of the people of the Niger Delta, South South, the entire minorities and the development and unity of this great nation. This was even contained in the congratulatory letter which I wrote to President Muhammadu Buhari, dated 3rd April, 2015.

My retirement from partisan politics

I am fast approaching 90 years and had been in active politics for over 60 years.  It came to me as a shock that misguided persons are trying to lose their senses over my decision to quit active partisan politics.

I was in the Niger Delta Congress (NDC), with the late sage Chief Harold Dappa-Biriye and late His Excellency, Chief Melford Okilo between 1955 and 1959. I was in Mid West Front (MWF). I was in the National Congress for Nigerian Citizens, NCNC. I was Secretary of the Zikist Vanguard, London in 1962.  I served in General Yakubu Gowon’s cabinet as Minister of Information with late General Murtala Mohammed as Minister of Commerce, General Olusegun Obasanjo as Minister of Works, Alhaji Shehu Shagari as Minister of Finance. Today, three of these persons have become Presidents of Nigeria. Apart from Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the others are no longer in active politics.

I was a member of the National Party of Nigeria, NPN. I recall with heavy heart that most of the people with whom I played politics are either dead or have become politically inactive. Some of them are Makama Bida of Niger State, Maitama Sule of Kano State, K. O. Mbadiwe of Imo State, Fani Kayode, Tanko Yakassai, Dr. Ibrahim Tahil of Bauchi State, Adamu Ciroma of Yobe State, Alhaji Ali Monguno of Borno State, A. M. A. Akinloye, T. O. S. Benson, Dr. Okezie of Imo State, M. T. Mbu of Cross River State, His Royal Majesty the Olubadan of Ibadan, just to mention a few. Not too long ago, I found myself attending a PDP caucus meeting in Warri with young men who are grand children of my political colleagues. Today, I sometimes move in a wheelchair. I had intimated former President Jonathan that once the elections were over and he was sworn into office for the second term, I will leave partisan politics and retire to my village.

Thus, I recalled earlier receiving a request by a group with the rather uplifting name of “Think Nigeria First Initiative” (TNFI), for a courtesy call on me and to make me their Grand Patron. The name alone sent sensations of kindred spirit through me and I readily accepted. I responded, enthusiastically, naturally. It was in that context that I said that myself at the age of nearly 89 years, and having carried my passions of similar ideals with theirs for over 60 years, had decided that my energies needed a paradigm restructuring. This same position I had declared at Akure, Ondo State, on the 24th of August, 2015, at the meeting of the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly, SNPA, of which, by God’s grace, I am one of the Leaders.

I wish to refer here to the crude and unpolished language used by Dr. Reuben Abati against me that I would have still been a PDP card-carrying member if former President Jonathan had won the election. I do not know the background of Dr. Abati but for him to lie and devilishly imagine that I should have remained a PDP card-carrying member if President Jonathan won the election is satanic.

No reader of The Guardian Newspaper, particularly its Sunday edition, will easily forget the frequently provocative columns by Dr. Reuben Abati. As the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the newspaper and syndicated columnist, Abati had a freehand to write whatever he liked in his column and could also influence other news items.  I do not recall any favourable remark made by Abati all those years when he was the Chairman of the Editorial Board and syndicated columnist about the former President His Excellency, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, and the First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

If I recall correctly, they were always the butt of ridicule by Dr. Reuben Abati. In fact, he became so notorious and a fearless critic of former President Jonathan and his wife in The Guardian Newspaper that I had to draw the attention of my cousin, the proprietor of The Guardian Newspaper to his excesses. These vitriolic attacks on former President Jonathan and his wife only stopped when he was appointed the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity by the former President.

On his appointment, Aso Rock activities and Jonathan’s achievements were not sold to the people of Nigeria. Reuben Abati will recall the number of times when I called his attention to how he was being negligent of his duty as the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity by not defending President Jonathan against some of the scurrilous attacks against him and also by not promoting his image and the well-known achievements of his administration. My advice that a Publicity Committee made up of eminent journalists be put in place in Aso Rock and that media proprietors and senior journalists should be invited to Aso Rock were jettisoned by Abati.

Dr. Reuben Abati has risen to the defence of his last employer too late. He owes the former President apologies for his (Reuben Abati’s) failure to perform while in office. I should not be used as a scapegoat. I love Goodluck Jonathan and Goodluck Jonathan loves me.

I repeat again that I will like Dr. Abati to find out from his former boss whether I did not intimate him of my intention that I will leave active politics sometime in 2015 and return to my village after Dr. Jonathan’s re-election as the President of Nigeria. It would be recalled that only two weeks ago, the former PDP National Chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, retired from partisan politics while celebrating his 80th Birthday. Although he is much younger than me, Reuben Abati and his likes did not feel offended. I repeat here again that I am very proud of my family background which has produced some of the most illustrious Nigerians and that I do not shift ground or change position. I still regard former President Jonathan as my son. Since the change of government, we have been in close communication on the telephone and Jonathan has visited me over four times.

When I pointed to the former President Jonathan that most of those who surrounded him were not loyal, sincere or patriotic but mere opportunists. It is, therefore, unfair and unjust for Reuben Abati and others to accuse me for saying things against former President Jonathan while he is no longer in office. It is even more shameful that Dr. Abati who claims to be a cultured Yoruba man, a people who have great respect for elders, to go on this wild macabre dance to insinuate and say outright lies against an elder statesman of my age and standing. Unknown to him, more Nigerians know me as a person of strong principles and ideals than he and his likes can imagine. This is why their attacks on me have exposed them to more ridicules in the eyes of most Nigerians, than they would have ever imagined.

Don"t use me as scapegoat for your failure - Edwin Clark writes Abati

Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son, by Reuben Abati

I have tried delaying the writing of this piece in the honest expectation that someone probably misquoted Chief E.K. Clark, when he reportedly publicly disowned former President Goodluck Jonathan.

Dr Reuben Abati

I had hoped that our dear father, E.K. Clark, would issue a counter statement and say the usual things politicians say: “they quoted me out of context!” “Jonathan is my son”. That has not happened; rather, some other Ijaw voices, including one Joseph Evah, have come to the defence of the old man, to join hands in rubbishing a man they once defended to the hilt and used as a bargaining chip for the Ijaw interest in the larger Nigerian geo-politics.

If President Jonathan had returned to power on May 29, 2015, these same persons would have remained in the corridors of power, displaying all forms of ethnic triumphalism.

It is the reason in case they do not realize it, why the existent power blocs that consider themselves most fit to rule, continue to believe that those whose ancestors never ran empires can never be trusted with power, hence they can only be admitted as other people’s agents or as merchants of their own interests which may even be defined for them as is deemed convenient. Mercantilism may bring profit, but in power politics, it destroys integrity and compromises otherwise sacred values.

President Jonathan being publicly condemned by his own Ijaw brothers, particularly those who were once staunch supporters of his government further serves the purpose of exposing the limits of the politics of proximity. Politics in Africa is driven by this particular factor; it is at the root of all the other evils: prebendalism, clientelism and what Matthew Kukah has famously described as the “myownisation of power.”

It is both positive and negative, but obviously, more of the latter than the former. It is considered positive only when it is beneficial to all parties concerned, and when the template changes, the ground also shifts. As in that song, the solid rock of proximity is soon replaced by shifting sands. Old worship becomes new opportunism. And the observant public is left confounded.

Edwin Clark

Chief E.K. Clark? Who would ever think, Chief E.K. Clark would publicly disown President Jonathan? He says Jonathan was a weak President. At what point did he come to that realization? Yet, throughout the five years (not six, please) of the Jonathan Presidency, he spoke loudly against anyone who opposed the President.

He was so combative he was once quoted as suggesting that Nigeria could have problems if Jonathan was not allowed to return to office. Today, he is the one helping President Jonathan’s successor to quench the fires. He always openly said President Jonathan is “his son.”

Today, he is not just turning against his own son, he is telling the world his son as President lacked the political will to fight corruption. He has also accused his son of being too much of a gentleman. Really? Gentlemanliness would be considered honourable in refined circles. Is Pa E.K. Clark recommending something else in order to prove that he is no longer a politician but a statesman as he says?

As someone who was a member of the Jonathan administration, and who interacted often with the old man, I can only say that I am shocked. This is the equivalent of the old man deleting President Jonathan’s phone number and ensuring that calls from his phone no longer ring at the Jonathan end.

During the Jonathan years, Chief E. K. Clark was arguably the most vocal Ijaw leader defending the government. He called the President “my son,” and both father and son remained in constant touch.

There is something about having the President’s ears in a Presidential system, elevated to the level of a fetish in the clientelist Nigerian political system. Persons in the corridors of power who have the President’s ear- be they cook, valet, in-laws, wife, cousin, former school mates, priests, or whatever, enjoy special privileges.

They have access to the President and they can whisper into his ears. That’s all they have as power: the power to whisper and run a whispering campaign that can translate into opportunities or losses for those outside that informal power loop around every Presidency, that tends to be really influential.

Every President must beware of those persons who come around calling them “Daddy”, “Uncle”, na my brother dey there”, “my son”, “our in-law”- emotional blackmailers relying on old connections. They are courted, patronized and given more attention and honour than they deserve by those looking for access to the President or government.

Even when the power and authority of the whispering exploiters of the politics of proximity is contrived, they go out of their way to exaggerate it. They acquire so much from being seen to be in a position to make things happen.

President Jonathan

Chief E. K. Clark had the President’s ears. He had unfettered access to his son. He was invited to most state events. And he looked out for the man he called “my son”, in whom he was well pleased. Chief Clark’s energy level in the service of the Jonathan administration was impressive. Fearless and outspoken, he deployed his enormous talents in the service of the Jonathan government. If a press statement was tame, he drew attention to it and urged a more robust defence of “your boss.”

If any invective from the APC was overlooked, he urged prompt rebuttal. If the party was tardy in defending “his son”, he weighed in.

If anyone had accused the President of lacking “the political will to fight corruption” at that time, he, E.K. Clark, would have called a press conference to draw attention to the Jonathan administration’s institutional reforms and preventive measures, his commitment to electoral integrity to check political corruption, and the hundreds of convictions secured by both the ICPC and EFCC under his son’s watch.

So prominent and influential was he, that ministers, political jobbers etc etc trooped to his house to pay homage.

In due course, those who opposed President Jonathan did not spare Chief E. K. Clark either. He was accused of making inflammatory and unstatesman-like statements. An old war-horse, nobody could intimidate him. He was not President Olusegun Obasanjo’s fan in particular. He believed Obasanjo wanted to sabotage his son, and he wanted Obasanjo put in his place. Beneath all of that, was an unmistaken rivalry between the two old men, seeking to control the levers of Nigerian politics.

Every President probably needs a strong, passionate ally like Chief E. K. Clark. But what happened? What went wrong? Don’t get me wrong. I am not necessarily saying that the Ijaw leader should have remained loyal to and defend Goodluck Jonathan because they are both Ijaws, patriotism definitely could be stronger than ethnic affinities, nonetheless that E. K. Clark tale about leaving politics and becoming a statesman is nothing but sheer crap.

If Jonathan had returned to office, he would still be a card-carrying member of the PDP and the “father of the President” and we would still have been hearing that famous phrase, “my son”. Chief E. K. Clark, five months after, has practically told the world that President Buhari is better than “his own son”.

It is the worst form of humiliation that President Jonathan has received since he left office. It is also the finest compliment that President Buhari has received since he assumed office. The timing is also auspicious: just when the public is beginning to worry about the direction of the Buhari government, E. K. Clark shows up to lend a hand of support and endorsement.

Only one phrase was missing in his statement, and it should have been added: “my son, Buhari.” It probably won’t be too long before we hear the old man saying “I am a statesman, Buhari is my son.” I can imagine President Obasanjo grinning with delight.

If he really wants to be kind, he could invite E.K. Clark to his home in Ota or Abeokuta to come and do the needful by publicly tearing his PDP membership card and join him in that exclusive club of Nigerian statesmen!

The only problem with that club these days is that you can become a member by just saying so or by retiring from partisan politics. We are more or less being told that there are no statesmen in any of the political parties.

It is not funny. Julius Ceasar asked Brutus in one of the famous lines in written literature: “Et tu Brutus?” President Jonathan should ask Chief E. K. Clark: “Et tu Papa?” To which the father will probably tell the son: “Ces’t la vie, mon cher garcon.” And really, that is life.

In the face of other considerations, loyalties vanish; synergies collapse. The wisdom of the tribe is overturned; the politics of proximity dissolves; loyalties remain in a perpetual process of construction. Thus, individual interests and transactions drive the political game in Nigeria, with time and context as key determinants.

These are teachable moments for President Jonathan. Power attracts men and women like bees to nectar, the state of powerlessness ends as a journey to the island of loneliness.

However, the greatest defender of our work in office is not our ethnic “fathers and “brothers” but rather our legacy. The real loss is that President Jonathan’s heroism, his messianic sacrifice in the face of defeat, is being swept under the carpet and his own brothers who used to say that the Ijaws are driven by a principle of “one for all and all for another”, have become agent-architects of his pain.

The Ijaw platform having seemingly been de-centered, Chief E.K. Clark and others are seeking assimilation in the new power structure. It is a telling reconstruction of the politics of proximity and mimicry.

Chief E.K. Clark once defended the rights of ethnic minorities to aspire to the highest offices in the land, his latest declaration about his son reaffirms the existing stereotype at the heart of Nigeria’s hegemonic politics.

The same hegemons and their agents whom Clark used to fight furiously will no doubt find him eminently quotable now that he has proclaimed that it is wrong to be a “gentleman”, and that his son lacks “the political will to fight corruption”. There is more to this than we may ever know.

Chief Clark can insist from now till 2019, that he has spoken as a statesman and as a matter of principle. His re-alignment, is curious nonetheless.

Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son, by Reuben Abati

My phones no longer ring by Reuben Abati

By Reuben Abati

As spokesman to President Goodluck Jonathan, my phones rang endlessly and became more than personal navigators within the social space. They defined my entire life; dusk to dawn, all year-round. The phones buzzed non-stop, my email was permanently active; my twitter account received tons of messages per second.   The worst moments were those days when there was a Boko Haram attack virtually every Sunday.

Dr Reuben Abati

The intrusion into my private life was total as my wife complained about her sleep being disrupted by phones that never seemed to stop ringing. Besides, whenever I was not checking or responding to the phones, I was busy online trying to find out if the APC had said something contrarian or some other fellow was up to any mischief. A media manager in the 21st  century is a slave of the Breaking News, a slave particularly of the 24-hour news cycle, and a potential nervous breakdown case. Debo Adesina, my colleague at  The Guardian  once said I was running a “one week, one trouble schedule”. There were actually moments when trouble knocked on the door every hour, and duty required my team and I to respond to as many issues that came up.

Top of the task list was the management of phone calls related to the principal. In my first week on the job, for example, one of my phones ran out of battery and I had taken the liberty to charge it. While it was still in the off mode, the “Control Room”: the all-powerful communications centre at the State House tried to reach me. They had only just that phone number, so I couldn’t be reached. When eventually they did, the fellow at the other end was livid.

“SA Media, where are you? We have been trying to reach you. Mr President wants to speak with you”

“Sorry, I was charging my phone.   The phone was off.”

“Sir, you can’t switch off your phone now.   Mr President must be able to reach you at any time. You must always be available.”   I was like: “really? Which kin job be dis?”

The Control Room eventually collected all my phone numbers. If I did not pick up a call on time, they called my wife. Sometimes the calls came directly from the Residence, as we referred to the President’s official quarters.

“Abati, Oga dey call you!”

If I still could not be reached, every phone that was ever connected to me would ring non-stop. Busy bodies who had just picked up the information that Abati was needed also often took it upon themselves to track me down. My wife soon got used to her being asked to produce me, or a car showing up to take me straight to the Residence. I eventually got used to it, and learnt to remain on duty round-the-clock.   In due course, President Jonathan himself would call directly. My wife used to joke that each time there was a call from him, even if I was sleeping, I would spring to my feet and without listening to what he had to say, I would start with a barrage of “Yes sirs”! Other calls that could not be joked with were calls from my own office. Something could come up that would require coverage, or there could be a breaking story, or it could be something as harmless as office gossip, except that in the corridors of power, nothing is ever harmless. Looking back now, I still can’t figure out how I survived that onslaught of the terror of the telephone.

Of equal significance were the calls from journalists who wanted clarifications on issues of the moment, or the President’s opinion on every issue. I don’t need to remind anyone who lived in Nigeria during the period, that we had a particularly interesting time. The Jonathan government had to deal from the very first day with a desperate and hyper-negative opposition, which gained help from a crowd of naysayers who bought into their narrative. I was required to respond to issues. Bad news sells newspapers and attracts listeners/viewers. Everything had to be managed.   You knew something had happened as the phones rang, and the text messages, emails, twitter comments poured in. The media could not be ignored. Interfacing with every kind of journalist was my main task.   I learnt many lessons,   a subject for another day.   And the busy bodies didn’t make things easy.

If in 1980, the media manager had to deal with print and broadcast journalists, today, the big task is the dilemma of the over-democratization of media practice in the age of information. The question used to be asked in Nigerian media circles: who is a journalist? Attempts were subsequently made to produce a register of professionals but that is now clearly an illusion. The media of the 21st  Century is the strongest evidence we have for the triumph of democracy. Everybody is a journalist now, once you can purchase a phone or a laptop, or an ipad and you can take pictures, set up a blog, or go on instagram, linked-in, viber etc.

All kinds of persons have earned great reputation as editors and opinion influencers on social media where you don’t have to make sense to attract followers. The new stars and celebrities are not necessarily the most educated or knowledgeable, but those who with 140 words or less, or with a picture or a borrowed quote,   can produce fast-food type public intellectualism, or can excite with a little display of the exotic -Kadarshian, Nicki Minaj style.   But I was obligated to attend to all calls. The ones who didn’t receive an answer complained about Abati not picking their calls.

My defence was that most editors in Nigeria have correspondents in the State House. Every correspondent had access to me. There was no way I could be accused of not picking calls, and in any case, there were other channels: instagram, twitter direct message, email, and media assistants who could interface with me. But this was the main challenge: while in public office, people treat you as if you are at their mercy, they threaten to sabotage you and get you sacked, every phone call was a request with a price attached, you get clobbered; you are treated like you had committed a crime to serve your nation. Relatives and privileged kinsmen struggled with you to do the job – media management is that one assignment in which everyone is an expert even if their only claim to relevance is that they once had an uncle who was a newspaper vendor!

The thinking that anyone who opts to serve is there to make money in that famous arena for primitive accumulation partly accounts for this. And that takes me to those phone calls from persons who solicited for financial help as if there was a tree at the Villa that produced money. Such people would never believe that government officials don’t necessarily have access to money. They wanted to be assisted: to pay school fees, to settle medical bills, to build a house, purchase a car, complete an uncompleted building, or link them up with the President. Everybody wanted a part of the national cake and they thought a phone call was all they needed.   If you offered any explanation, they reminded you that you’d be better off on the lecture circuit. Businessmen also hovered around the system like bees around nectar.

But what to do? “Volenti non fit injuria,”  the principle says.   There were also calls from the unkind lot. “I have called you repeatedly, you did not pick my calls. I hope you know that you will leave government one day!”.   Or those who told you point blank that they were calling because you were in the position as their representative and that you owed them a living.   Or that other crowd who said, “it is our brother that has given you that opportunity, you must give us our share.”

The Presidential election went as it did, and everything changed. Days after,   State House became Ghost House. The Residence, which used to receive visitors as early as  6 am, (regular early morning devotion attendees) became quiet. The throng of visitors stopped. The number of phone calls began to drop. By  May 29, my phones had stopped ringing as they used to. They more or less became museum pieces; their silence reminding me of the four years of my life that proved so momentous. On one occasion, after a whole day of silence, I had to check if the phones were damaged! As it were, a cynical public relates to you not as a person, but as the office you occupy; the moment you leave office, the people move on; erasing every memory, they throw you into yesterday’s dustbin.   Opportunism is the driver of the public’s relationship with public officials.

Today, the phones remain loudly silent, with the exception of calls from those friends who are not gloating, who have been offering words of commendation and support. They include childhood friends, former colleagues, elderly associates, fans, and family members. And those who want interviews with President Jonathan, both local and international – they want his reaction on every development, so many of them from every part of the planet. But he is resting and he has asked me to say he is not ready yet to say anything. It is truly, a different moment, and indeed, “no condition is permanent.” The ones who won’t give up with the stream of phone calls and text messages are those who keep pestering me with requests for financial assistance. I am made to understand that there is something called “special handshake” and that everyone who goes into government is supposed to exit with carton loads of cash. I am in no position to assist such people, because no explanation will make sense to them. Here I am, at the crossroads; I am glad to be here.

 

My phones no longer ring by Reuben Abati

Jonathan signs two bills into law

By Ben Agande, Abuja.

President Goodluck Jonathan, Monday, signed two bills into laws.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Reuben Abati told state House Correspondents that the two bills include the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 and the Immigration Act 2015.

It would be recalled that the Senate  on May 4 passed the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 into law.

Among other things, the Act  prohibits female circumcision or genital mutilation, forceful ejection from home and harmful widowhood practices.

By the provosions of the new Act, it is an offence for a husband to  abandon his spouse, children and other dependents without sustenance.

The Bill also criminises  battery and other harmful traditional practices.

 

Jonathan signs two bills into law

President Jonathan denies spending N2trn on election campaign

President Goodluck Jonathan had denied spending N2 trillion on election campaign, contrary to media report (Not Naija Center)

Jonathan responded on Sunday through his Special adviser on Media and Publicity , Reuben Abati

The statement read thus

The front-page story of the Sunday Punch of April 19 alleging that the Presidency spent a whopping N2 trillion on the 2015 General elections, and that a Committee of Five has been set up by President Jonathan to conduct an audit on how the funds were disbursed by party members and state officials is mischievous, false and embarrassing.

The President has not set up any committee as alleged in that story. It is also not true that the Presidency and the Peoples Democratic Party used state funds, or spent N2 trillion during the campaigns. The innuendoes are wrong-headed; the motives behind the story are suspicious.

The story alleges, for example, that the Presidency spent N2trillion on elections and embarked on a money-sharing spree to party members, support groups and state officials. The authors of the story and their self-appointed megaphones further insinuate that public funds were deployed in this regard. Their allegation of a theft of public funds is extremely malicious.

How much is the budget of the Federal Government of Nigeria? The annual budget of the Federal Government is a little over N4 trillion. The story is practically suggesting that half of the federal budget was spent on elections. This kind of reckless insinuation is meant to incite the public and instigate national crisis.

With FAAC having to do everything possible every month to ensure disbursements and with the Federal Government heavily committed to the war against terror in the North East, where is the alleged N2 trillion from the Federal purse? President Jonathan and the People’s Democratic Party conducted the 2015 elections in strict accordance with the rule of law. The suggestion of any unlawful conduct cannot be sustained under any circumstances.

President Jonathan has done his best to protect and strengthen democracy and promote peace. He justly deserves all the accolades that he has received from both Nigerians and the international community for this. Certain persons and interest groups may not be happy that his profile has further risen and that his legacy is assured; but they do their country gross disservice when they act so unpatriotically.

Anyone who is engaged in imposing a crisis on the country by any means is not being fair to Nigeria. We can only appeal to the public to be wary of such reckless tactics now on display, which form the substance of an odd, malicious campaign after the elections.

We are particularly worried that since the March 28 and April 11 elections, some persons have continued to work very hard to diminish the Jonathan Presidency. They need to be reminded that the time for politics is over; it is now time to focus on the in-coming government, with emphasis on national development and moving the country forward.

 

President Jonathan denies spending N2trn on election campaign

Alleged N3bn budget for transition committee, a blackmail - Presidency

The Presidency has described as pure fiction and blackmail a social media broadcast claiming that President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration has budgeted N3billion for members of the transitional committee working on the hand over notes to the President-elect, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari.

In a statement Monday, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Reuben Abati said the story being circulated was a product of mischief and mere fiction.

He was reacting to reports in the social media which claimed that  Buhari was at the villa in connection to setting up a transition committee for handing over claiming that  at the meeting, Goodluck asked for the list of representatives of APC & the required remuneration.

The report added that Buhari was surprised that Goodluck’s list & corresponding cost was put at N3billion for a job estimated to last only 2months. Goodluck then asked why Buhari’s list didn’t show corresponding cost?

“Buhari answered that his team was made up of volunteers and their feeding would be by individuals/self even if they have to bring in leftover food from their homes. No word has been heard from presidency since then.

But in his reaction,  the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati said, ‎”this is pure fiction and blackmail. No such meeting or conversation ever took place. Whoever wrote the copy obviously has never heard of being magnanimous in victory. A charlatan certainly”.

 

Alleged N3bn budget for transition committee, a blackmail - Presidency

Don"t panic against face result - Presidency advises Nigerians

The Presidency on Sunday urged supporters of President Goodluck Jonathan against panic over some “fake results” of the Saturday’s presidential elections, allegedly being released by opposition party.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, made the Presidency’s position known on his Facebook page.

Abati asked supporters of the President not to be fooled by the said results, saying the only confirmed result so far was the one from Ekiti State.

He expressed delight that Jonathan won in the South-West state.

He also noted that the Independent National Electoral Commission had addressed the issue of the fake results.

Abati wrote, “Our numerous supporters (both home and abroad) are reaching out to us and requesting that we should say something.

“We can assure you that we are on top of everything.

“INEC has already addressed the issue of viral ‘opposition’ sponsored fake results that they should be ignored.

“So far, the only announced concluded official result from anywhere is from EKITI state.”

“A resounding victory for President Jonathan! Don’t be fooled or panic. We say thank you.”

Don"t panic against face result - Presidency advises Nigerians

Impeachment Threat Not A New Thing – Abati

• Opposition Only Heating up Polity

In this interview with GEORGE AGBA, special adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan on media and publicity, Dr Reuben Abati, defends his boss on the plethora of allegations levelled against his government. Insisting that the President has not committed any impeachable offence, the presidential spokesman argues strongly that while blackmail is the reason why the issue of corruption is being played up against the current administration, those accusing the Jonathan government of corruption are the ones who are most corrupt

Dr Reuben Abati

The opposition has kept insisting that the Presidency was behind the recent incident in which the Speaker of the House of Representatives and some lawmakers were locked out of the National Assembly. Would the police have embarked on such a mission without orders from above?

The police is an institution; it is a constitutional body. Its functions are properly spelt out in the Police Act and the Constitution. The police have the responsibility to maintain law and order. If in every instance when the police have intelligence reports or where they see the need to perform their constitutional duties, they would still have to get clearance from the President, then there will be chaos in society. I would have thought that the idea of having institutions is that such institutions should be strong enough to discharge their constitutional responsibilities whenever the occasion arises.

The President had no hand in that incident, and the police themselves have said so. According to the police, they got intelligence reports that some hoodlums were trying to overwhelm the National Assembly and you need to understand the context in which that occurred. If the police whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order have that kind of information, they don’t need to go and take directive from the President, even if in this instance what was involved was the legislative assembly. In fact, the situation called for even greater urgency and prompt action. Legislators are very important Nigerians.

So, the police said they acted on the basis of the information that they had to prevent thugs from overwhelming the National Assembly. They have also said that given the fallout from that action that they took, which was meant to be preemptive, they are still going to investigate to find out exactly what happened and that at the end of the investigation they will make their findings known to all Nigerians. I think that is where we are at this moment on that matter and I think it is most unfair to continue to drag the name of the President into everything. Even if the President of a country as big as this wants to, there is no way he can micro manage every little thing.

There are institutions that have been established to function under the law, but because politicians are involved, it is very convenient, and this is election time, to try to drag President Jonathan’s name into everything that mischief-makers can dredge up.

The resultant effect from this incident is that the House is now divided, with the opposition lawmakers angling for the impeachment of the President and those of the ruling party opposing the move. Don’t you think it is a bad omen for the Jonathan presidency? 

This is not the first time that the House of Representatives would threaten to impeach a sitting president. I think they issued a similar threat under former President Obasanjo. But I don’t think that anybody will impeach this President, because this is a President that has not committed any wrong. He is a President who has served this country diligently. For the opposition politicians, Nigerians can see through their antics, because the people who are calling for the President’s impeachment are members of the opposition, the All Progressives Congress (APC); the same people who are threatening that if the President wins in 2015, they will form a parallel government and make Nigeria ungovernable.

The 2015 elections have not even taken place. The President is still an aspirant; he has not been officially declared a candidate. He has just been screened by his party and given a certificate of clearance, but already it looks like the APC has accepted defeat. They are already speaking like losers, bad losers, in an election that has not taken place yet; that will still take place in February. Perhaps all this is consistent with their rhetoric of saying they will make Nigeria ungovernable, they will form a parallel government, they will cause commotion. So, their threat of impeachment is part of it and I think that Nigerians should appeal to them to allow democracy to take its course, to allow the Nigerian democracy we are trying to consolidate to flourish.

Threatening fire and brimstone, and mayhem, all of that is bad sportsmanship, totally unpatriotic in my view, and it is selfish. Even from the rhetoric, either on the platform of the legislature or in other circumstances, there is so much threat. They are heating up the polity. If they want power, the best place to go is the ballot; it is not through threat of impeachment or making Nigeria ungovernable, and as I said earlier, Nigerians can see through their antics. We should appeal to them to allow the people of Nigeria to freely express their will through the ballot box and they must not do anything for any reason whatsoever to hijack the will of the people through the back door.

Governor Amaechi, who actually made that statement of forming a parallel government, had been consistent in criticising the President and the federal government. That he seems to get away with the weighty allegations he keeps making gives credibility to whatever he says. Any plans to get him to prove the allegations he has made so far?

You know that as a sitting governor, he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, and I guess, in his own case, he interprets that immunity to mean a licence to be utterly disagreeable whenever he chooses to be. It is really pitiable that a man like Governor Amaechi is almost descending to the level of the ridiculous with the accustomed manner in which he spews sound with no sense. At nearly every event these days, including the ones organised by him at public expense, and even when the event has nothing to do with President Jonathan, he will find a way of accusing President Jonathan of doing nothing for Rivers State, whereas that is not true. When that is not the issue, he would whine childishly about Soku oil wells. Or he will invite his audience to make sure that they don’t vote for President Jonathan in 2015.

In fact, in one recent incident, he was said to have been addressing a group of students and he told them that in 2015 they must vote out President Jonathan and the student responded in unison, “no”. He lost his audience. He was booed. It is instructive that the more he tries to condemn President Jonathan, the more he finds that nobody is willing to listen to him. He doesn’t have an audience because the people know that his baseless allegations against President Jonathan make no sense

We will like to encourage Governor Amaechi in the few months that remain out of his tenure in Rivers State, to concentrate on governing and serving the people of Rivers State, rather than going about launching what looks like a full-time obsessive maniacal campaign against the person and office of President Jonathan. And of course, he must realise that we are living under the rule of law. Those who invite the storm over the heads of other people oftentimes fail to realise that when that storm descends, it may descend first on their own heads.

Soon after the President’s declaration, the opposition alleged that it was insensitive for him to have proceeded with his declaration barely 24 hours after over 40 school children were butchered by Boko Haram sect in Potiskum, Yobe State. Doesn’t this sound like President Jonathan is a leader who lacks empathy for the plight of his people?

On that, I granted an interview in which I accused the APC of sheer hypocrisy, because a day after the President’s declaration at the Eagle Square, they themselves had one elaborate event in Edo State. So, why didn’t they postpone their event? Why didn’t they even remember the children that were said to have been killed at their event? So, you are dealing with people who are duplicitous, people who go by double standards; they talk from both ends of their mouth. Whatever they do, no matter how questionable, is supposed to be accepted by others, and when another man does anything at all, especially if it is President Jonathan, they try to pull him down, and of course, I accuse them frontally of jealousy, hypocrisy and unproductive pull-him-down politics

They saw that the declaration by the President was a very successful event supported by Nigerians across all facets of society. Even in the United Kingdom, in the US and everywhere in diaspora, Nigerians celebrated President Jonathan’s declaration for a second term in office, which for them (opposition) cannot be good news because they could see with their own eyes very clearly, they could hear very clearly too that President Jonathan is the man, he is the leader that Nigerians prefer.

The truth is that President Jonathan is fully committed to bringing the nightmare of terrorism in our country to an end. Anyone who tells you that he is not, is just being unkind for their own selfish reasons. No President will want to preside over any form of insecurity, because without peace, security and stability, it will be difficult to achieve the objectives of national growth and development across board.

The aggression, especially after the failed botched negotiation with the Boko Haram insurgents had been one of the greatest reasons for attack on the President. Is there any hope of a total repel of the miscreants in the territories they now occupy?

The war against terror is a war that this administration is determined to win no matter how long it takes, no matter what it requires. President Jonathan has been very unequivocal in making it clear that under his watch terrorists will not take over Nigeria. In what appears to be a resurgence of terrorist activities, there have been quite a number of unfortunate incidents in the North-Eastern part of the country but the government is acquiring new arms and ammunitions, soldiers are being retrained, more effort is being put into the cooperation with our neighboring countries.

But of course if you look at the history of terror in different parts of the world, in Colombia, in Afghanistan, terror is a major threat to the whole of humanity because it is a cancerous kind of evil which even when you think it is gone, it suddenly resurfaces. But in this particular case, government is adopting every strategy to ensure that it wins the war against these evil-minded persons and that at the same time it safeguards the lives of people and their property.

Aside terrorism, there are communal clashes like the recent one in Nasarawa State. Each time the clashes happen, the state governors keep saying they are helpless in quelling communal aggression and clashes. They keep insisting that it is only an assignment for the President and the federal government. What exactly does the constitution say about this and has the President been able to handle this in the face of rising socio-political clashes in Nigeria?

The responsibility for ensuring peace and stability is not that of the President alone. It is that of all Nigerians, and the governors in whatever state they may be cannot say that it is not their business. What you are trying to suggest is that a sitting governor can legitimately say that the welfare of the people under him and their security is not his business. And for any governor to say that at all is irresponsible because state Governors owe the people they serve a duty of care.

Take for instance, the Safe Schools Initiative that has been introduced by President Jonathan which involves physically securing schools and ensuring that schools without gates and fences, are properly fenced and all that.

Are you saying that a state governor who knows that the state governments are equally responsible for secondary school education can legitimately say that it is not his business to provide security in schools? Some of these communal clashes that you talked about are usually as a result of disagreements between two communities or two sects or two ethnic groups and at the state level. These are grassroots issues. Can a Governor say it is the primary responsibility of the President to resolve communal clashes or to provide an enabling environment for inter-ethnic and religious harmony? I don’t think that any responsible Governor would say that. Even in terms of security, it should not be taken in the literal sense of soldiers and the police securing a particular environment.

Security if taken in an expanded view involves economic security. Is it not also the duty of Governors to ensure the welfare and prosperity of the people? In fact, when you say this and that is the responsibility of the President alone, you clearly want to turn Nigeria into a one-man state where one man is responsible for everything. We are not running a one-man system. That is why President Jonathan at every occasion has always talked about unity of purpose, about solidarity of action and that is why we have a National Council of state where governors and the President sit together and take a decision on major issues.

And that is why President Jonathan has said the kind of solidarity that was demonstrated in eliminating Ebola is the kind of unity of purpose, solidarity of action he would like to see in other aspects of national life, security inclusive. So, it would be wrong to say it is the President alone who is responsible for all the security. These days when people even dream and wake up in the morning after a bad dream, they will say oh, President Jonathan should do something about people having bad dreams. That is how ridiculous it is, the president gets blamed for everything, and if Governors begin to sound like that then it means that we really have a serious situation on our hands which amounts to abdication of responsibility on the part of whichever Governor is talking like that.

Viewed 1 times
Impeachment Threat Not A New Thing – Abati

All past leaders did well, but Jonathan is the best since independence - Presidency

THE presidency on Friday assessed the performance of previous Nigerian leaders since independence and concluded that even though they did well within the circumstances they found themselves, none of them achieved half of what President Goodluck Jonathan has done in four years.

President Jonathan

The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Public Affairs, Dr. Doyin Okupe, who made this assertion during a 4-Day Public Affairs Forum organised in Abuja to highlight the achievements of the present administration, also gave a hint on the campaign strategy the administration would adopt towards the 2015 presidential election.

He described as “nonsense” claims that the transformation agenda of the Federal Government exists only in the media, regretting, however, that not much had been done to sell the good performance of government to the Nigerian people.

Naming the various Nigerian past leaders, the presidential aide remarked that they contributed immensely to the development of the country to their best ability as he observed that each of them had his own achievement.

“All past administrationsdid well but Jonathan is the best.

“No government from 1960 has done half of what Jonathan has done in four years,” he added.

Okupe revealed that the administration would unleash the achievements of President Jonathan on Nigerians during the campaign to convince them that he remained the best option for the country in the years to come.

He said: “It is nonsense to say that the transformation agenda of Jonathan exists only on the television. We have not spoken about what he has done. We are going to overwhelm Nigerians during the campaign.”

Okupe advised Nigerians to shun the antics of the opposition, saying that in spite of all their talks, they have not been able to tell Nigerians what they will offer.

He said: “People say they are coming. They haven’t said what they will do. Jonathan’s own is ‘we have done this, we have done that.’

“This election will be a no contest. We are telling the world what Jonathan has done. We will not stop until well beyond February.”

The Minister of Transport, Senator Idris Umar, presented his ministry’s achievements in the last four years during the occasion with the theme, “The Jonathan administration: Four impactful years.”

Viewed 1 times
All past leaders did well, but Jonathan is the best since independence - Presidency