When the primary election (presidential) of the National Democratic Congress of Ghana was to take place early last year, preparatory to the election proper, a prophet in the country predicted that Nana, wife of former President Jerry Rawlings, who was an aspirant, would emerge the next president of the country. The prophet did not say that Professor John Atta Mills, then the incumbent president and an aspirant in the primaries, would not return to the office if he won the primaries but simply said that Mrs. Rawlings would be the next president, meaning that she would win the primaries and go ahead to win the election proper.
By the time the primaries of the NDC was conducted it was Atta Mills and not Mrs. Rawlings that won, it thus meant the latter failed to secure the ticket of the party, with which she could contest the general election and possibly emerge the president. Although Mills died before the election and could not as a result be in the office for the second term, but his Vice President and running mate-designate in the election, John Mahama, who had assumed office as the new president, made use of the ticket and won the presidential election.
The prophet seemed not to have had his prediction divinely inspired. He was probably influenced on the prediction by the standing and popularity of Mr. Rawlings within the NDC, thinking that the influence of the man in the party would win the party’s ticket for his wife.
Things could happen the way they are foretold by people endowed with the gift to foresee them. Not everything foretold is however known to have come to pass. Perhaps those who foretold them did not foresee them but only being swayed by certain influences and are proved wrong at the end of the day. Some predictions may be said to be made, which are not actually predictions because they are made when the possibility of occurrence of what they said would happened is almost obvious.
For example, at the time a Lagos-based pastor reportedly predicted that Dr. Olusegun Mimiko of Labour Party would win the Ondo State governorship election last year, it was already becoming obvious that that would happen considering the analysis and reports that had been objectively made about the chances of the candidates in the election.
Some years back, in one of the national newspapers, a prophet predicted that there would be a president from Adamawa State who would turn things around in the country. The prediction was a six-paragraph story published on inside page of the newspaper. I hope the prophet or the editor that used the story is still around to confirm it. The prophet neither mentioned the name of the Adamawa State politician nor say when this would come to pass and there was no inference in the prediction that the country would not develop during the administration of any other person from another state of the federation. The prediction also did not state that the reign of the Adamawa State politician will be the golden era for the country. It only said the country would witness development.
It cannot be said that the prediction should be totally believed or be believed to some any extent since there was no proof of how the prophet foresaw it and I doubt if the prophet is one renowned for prophecies. The prediction may not however be totally discarded because any gifted person, whether famous or not, may make a prophesy that would come to pass if he actually foresaw the incidence. The fact that this prediction came at a time that the prophet can hardly be said to be influenced by emotions, sentiment or prevailing opinion, is also another reason it may not be totally waved aside.
It came at the time when a military Head of State, late General Sani Abacha, was in charge, running government without the people knowing what would happen next until later that it emerged that the man was interested in transmuting to a civilian president to continue to rule the country.
In 2007 when Atiku Abubakar contested for the Presidency, I remembered the prediction. I also remembered it in 2011 when the former Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Nuhu Ribadu, contested the election. However, I hesitate to believe that the pendulum of the prediction, if true, would swing in favour of Ribadu. Though the former EFCC boss may be said to have worked assiduously in the fight against corruption when he was the head of the anti graft agency, he seemed to have little or no regard for rule of law and democratic principles.
The man and his agency were saddled with the responsibilities of investigating and prosecuting financial crimes but he seemed to often overstep his bound by trying to take over the function of the judiciary with pronouncements that indicate that the people investigated have been found guilty while they were yet to be tried by the court.
He encouraged what could affect the federal structure of the country by arresting members of a House of Assembly of a state on the ground of allegation of certain corrupt practices against them but released the people after railroading them into impeaching and ensuring removal of the governor of the state on allegation of corruption without considering whether or not the processes leading to the removal was constitutional. As witnessed during the time, this practice, to a
great extent, encouraged the head of the central government to be autocratic by removing a governor not in his or his loyalist’s good book and thus, in a way, turning the country to a unitary state as against the federal system guaranteed by the constitution.
In 2010 when Abubakar was chosen as the preferred candidate of a group to contest the primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party against the incumbent, President Goodluck Jonathan, the group said the politician was preferred because of his democratic credentials. The group, by the democratic credentials, was probably referring to the role the former vice president played in thwarting the alleged third term ambition of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. He, as the deputy of Obasanjo then, came out openly to oppose the alleged ambition and mobilised and encourage like minds to ensure that the third term was not possible, thus saving the nation from what could draw back the growth of its democracy.
He could not however achieve his own ambition of emerging the new president as he lost the election he contested on the platform of the then Action Congress. He recorded yet another failure in 2010 as he was humbled in the PDP primaries he contested against Jonathan who even won the majority of votes of the delegates from Abubakar’s state, Adamawa.
It may be good that the politician suffered this. This is because some leaders who became head of government of their country immediately after they had been involved in pro-democracy or self-rule campaign or criticism of the wrongs of the incumbent, ended up being guilty of what they had fought against. This is perhaps because the massive popularity they enjoyed during the struggle made them to see themselves as a kind of hero that should be worshiped, thus making it difficult for them to manage criticism. Or because while criticizing and constituting a check against the people in power, they failed to prepare themselves for criticism when they come to power.
Benito Mussolini, before becoming the head of the government of Italy, was an activist politician who virulently criticised the policies of the incumbent government through writings in newspapers and organisation of protests. He was once imprisoned for his criticism. He formed the Fascist party, with adoption of populistic programme and became popular among the unemployed members of the society, youths and many others. When his party eventually formed the government, he emerged a dictator, coming up with the doctrine of deification of the state and the ruler. He gagged the press, denied people of fundamental rights, practiced nepotism and subdued the oppositions.
In Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah was very popular among the masses for the opposition he and his party raised against colonial administration. Due to the popularity he and the party enjoyed, the party won the election and he was invited from detention to form the government while the country became an independent nation in 1957. However, it appeared that the Nkrumah government could not accommodate criticism as it became a sort of terror on the opposition.
After being annihilated at the presidential primaries of the PDP, Abubakar went ahead to canvass votes for Muritala Nyako, his state governor, who had humiliated him at that primaries. He also seems to be maintaining cordialities with many of the politicians in the state and, to some extent, in other places, with whom he had once had differences.
It may be that he is doing this as a bait to woo support for his subsisting presidential ambition but one may not rule out the possibility of this undertaking making an impact in his approaches to things. It happens at times that when, in order to achieve a goal, one engages in a practice that is probably not his habit or improve in the practice more than he used to do. The person’s persistence in the practice or the improvement may inadvertently transform him for good such that he is less vindictive, more humble and less loquacious.
However, if at all the politician underwent any transformation, it is not sure (if the prediction is true and it happens to be in his favour) to what extent it would reflect on his alleged audacious political maneuvering when he was an influence wielding vice president and leader of the PDP, although he was said to have with this influence frustrated the attempt to remove Chris Ngige from office as the Anambra State governor, in undemocratic and invidious manner.
Abubakar is reputed to be good in sourcing for capable hands to assist in running government and encouraging people
to come forward with ideas that could promote development. He appears not to be a religious bigot and ethnic chauvinist at least when in public office. He seems to be a an active leader with ability to motivate his members towards achievement the group’s set goal and not a positional leader who lacks focus and cannot inspire his members to achieve the goal, which John C. Maxwell says in his “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”, that he became leader merely because he find himself in the leadership position.
There is the view that Abubakar is desperate of becoming the president of the country. Perhaps, instances that promote this view are when he reportedly “ungratefully” decided to contest the presidential election in 2003 without minding the interest of his boss, President Olusegun Obasanjo, and when he left the Action Congress of Nigeria and returned to PDP he had earlier abandoned to prosecute his presidential ambition.
As much as these show a sign of being desperate, there may still also be the need to make further and deeper examinations before a conclusion is made. There may be the need to know why he reportedly showed interest in 2003 and why Obasanjo had to allegedly beg him to shelve his ambition to enable him go for second term. He conceded
to Obasanjo and some governors were said not to have liked it that he made the concession.
The decision of the politician to leave the ACN and return to the PDP made him to seem to be interested only in his ambition and look like a politician lacking consistency in decision. However while the reasons he left ACN is not known, aside from the allegation of frustration of move to form a mega party that could withstand the strength of the PDP, there may be need to look into why he and the leadership of the party seem to part ways amicably and still meet at functions without distancing themselves from each other.
There is also the need to examine his decision to agree to step down for late M.K.O. Abiola in 1992. This was during the primaries of the Social Democratic Party when another aspirant refused to step down. There is also the need to understand why he decided to make available to Obasanjo the platform of the Peoples Democratic Movement that controls influence within the PDP, for Obasanjo’s contest for the Presidency without seeming to negotiate for any post as he had chosen to function as the governor of his state before being picked as a vice presidential candidate. He had emerged the governor-elect and this is despite the fact that that he had proved to enjoy substantial popularity as a
presidential aspirant in 1992.
It is very reasonable to be wary of entrusting a desperate person with power. This is because there is the likelihood of narcissistic tendencies, that the person may be less concerned about the interest of the people while hankering after vested interest. He may want to cling to the power not wanting to relinquish it at the time he ought to. However, perhaps, it is sometimes difficult to figure out what a person may do or turn to be when he is in office. It is not always every time that a person seems to be too ambitious about being in government that he uses the office for selfish end or perpetrating himself in the office illegally. We have seen some governors who appeared to be over ambitious in their interest at becoming the governor by moving from one party to the other or doing some other things but who after
getting to the office use it to take care of people’s interest and run a selfless government.
On the other hand, however, a person may not show anything sign of being desperate or over ambitious about power, he may even seems reluctant about being entrusted with power and yet when he gets to the office he is more particular about vested interest than the interest of the people or may not want to call it quit at the time he is required to do that. Perhaps this country has witnessed this situation.
Abubakar has been alleged to be involved in corruption. The issue of corruption is an important matter to be considered if how a nation could develop is being examined. Corruption has been rightly described as the bane of our country’s development. There is no way a nation can develop if it thrives in corruption. It is therefore dangerous to saddle a corrupt leader with the responsibility of managing the affairs of a country yearning for development. One of the main reasons the developed countries of the world are so developed is discouragement of corruption. Even when some of these countries were running colonial administrations, they were not encouraging corruption in their colonies.
For example, in the Dominion of Canada, it was alleged that the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Hugh Allan, in 1873 donated hugely to the election funds of the Prime Minister, Sir John Macdonald, and when this allegation was investigated, an ample proof of truth of the charges was produced. This led to the defeat of Macdonald
at the general election at the end of that year. Some other colonial administrators in other colonies were also tried back home in England but many of them were acquitted of the charges against them.
The allegation of corruption against Abubakar, which is widespread, is that he snubbed due process and bought for himself many of the public companies of the country during the privatisation exercise when he was the chairman of the council on privatisation. Despite the fact that the authorities did not try Abubakar on allegation of shady deals in the sale
of public companies even when they seemed interested in securing a conviction, the allegation continued to create widespread insinuations that the politician is corrupt until the matter came up for discussion at the National Assembly in 2011 when the lawmakers were probing the privatisation exercise.
The man who was the Director General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises at the time Abubakar was chairman of the Council on Privatisation and when many of the nation’s assets were sold, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, at the National Assembly, revealed what transpired during the privatisation exercise. He said Abubakar only called him to tell him of people who were interested in wining the bid for the purchase of some of the assets but he (El-Rufai) told him that
he (Abubakar) knows the procedure involved and nothing would be done without due process while Abubakar retorted that he just delivered the message of the people so that they don’t say he refused to deliver it.
However the same El-Rufai has contradicted his revelation when he reportedly alleged in his book: “The Accidental Public Servant”, that Abubakar mounted pressure on him during the privatisation, insinuating that the former vice president stood against the BPE from following the due process. Although El-Rufai’s contradiction of his earlier submission seems to be influenced by certain interests, his later submission should not be denounced but should be investigated because nothing should be ignored that could play a role in fighting corruption in the land.
If Abubakar is actually guilty of corruption, he should stop nursing the ambition that he wants to manage affairs of this country but let there be his trial by a court of competent jurisdiction to determine that he is guilty. It is not proper to regard a person as being corrupt when he has not being properly tried and found guilty.
Ribadu also alleged that the then Governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, was not only corrupt but also that his corruption had international dimension. He was later to seek the ticket of the party Tinubu leads to contest the presidential election. Meanwhile, Tinubu was later tried by the Code of Conduct Bureau, which discharged and acquitted him, having not found him guilty of charges against him.
Abubakar recently lent his voice to the age-long and popular clamour for a restructuring that will give the country true federal system of government. But can he execute all what he said on the matter if it is possible that he becomes the president?
At the Annual Leadership Newspapers Awards in Abuja in September last year, he had been quoted to have said inter alia: “I want to recall that during the 1994-95 Constitutional Conference, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, the Second Republic Vice President of this federation, introduced and canvassed for the concept of geo-political zones. I was among those who opposed it because I thought that Ekwueme, coming from the defunct Republic of Biafra, wanted to break up the
country again. Now I realise that I should have supported him because he obviously saw what some of us, with our civil war mindset, could not see at the time. There is indeed too much concentration of power and resources at the centre. And it is stifling our march to true greatness as a nation and threatening our unity because of all the abuse, inefficiencies, corruption and reactive tensions that it has been generating. There is need, therefore, to review the structure of the Nigerian federation, preferably along the basis of the current six geopolitical zones as regions and the states as provinces. The existing states structure may not suffice, as the states are too weak materially and politically to provide what is needed for good governance.”
Also, in December 2012 at the 13th anniversary lecture and National Conference of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria in Enugu, Enugu State, Atiku also rested his clamour for resource control and devolution of power to the federating units. He was quoted to have said: “Presently, our state and local governments look up to Abuja for monthly dependence does not make for any meaningful autonomy and surely will not bring about meaningful should be reasonably self-reliant in term of revenue. The revenue it gets from other tiers should be supplementary, otherwise, it will lack reasonable degree of autonomy irrespective of what the law says. That is the reality of human condition and politics. That is why I have been calling for devolution of more powers and revenues from the Federal Government to the states and regional governments. It is not political posturing, it is a critical condition for deepening our democracy and promoting national
development, peace and security. You know what, if I am president, what is it? Coal? Enugu State take your coal! Oil? Niger Delta take your oil! But I have the power of taxation. If your income from coal is N1 trillion, I will say pay the Federal Government 70 per cent. That is your business. If you raise N10 trillion from oil, take your money but pay 75 per cent to the Federal Government.”
Are these just humbug? Would Abubakar be committed to execution of this restructuring if he happens to be president?
Moses wrote via oladmos@gmail.com.
Trending
- AUN students protest over electricity blackout, management shifts exams
- Legit.ng’s EIC, TUKO.co.ke’s ME share newsroom growth insights
- Tinubu to Dutch industry: Partnerships must be transformative, translate to gains
- Though it comes with pains, I take best decisions for Nigerians — Tinubu
- Five arrested for attack on LASTMA officials + Video, photos
- Queues: NNPC says cause of tightness in fuel supply resolved
- LG polls: Oyo declares Friday half working day
- Ondo 2024: Ajayi emerges PDP governorship candidate