The drama, the controversy, the
confusion, the double entendre, attended by seeming cowardice, that grew around
a statement, perhaps the statements, purportedly issued by former military
President Ibrahim Babangida on Sunday, February 4, is absolutely unnecessary,
unfortunate and utterly avoidable. A statesman, the new role in which President
Babangida has since found himself, is a father of the nation –more or less,
that is; the statesman’s role in the retirement corridors of power is to speak
truth to power, as a guide, as a conscience of the nation, as role model and as
a highly-placed influencer. Being a statesman thus comes with responsibilities
– the responsibility to speak with clarity and conviction is one of these. With
the confusion over what President Babangida said or did not say about the state
of the nation and the state of health of our democracy, it is now obvious that
he still has a lot to learn, despite his experience and stature.
Coming after the impactful and
unambiguous intervention by the Ota farmer, former President Olusegun Obasanjo,
calling for a change of direction and a reaffirmation of people power in
Nigerian politics, Babangida’s follow-up intervention, which could have
strengthened an emerging symphony of public thought, has now ended up as mere
spittle. Babangida must take responsibility for what clearly comes across to
me, as a lack of coherence and organization in the management of his office
after office. Statesmen should not speak with both sides of the mouth. They
should not play games with their views. They must not toy with public emotions.
I don’t now what to make right now, of what Babangida said or didn’t say about
our country and our nation. I am sure there are many others who are just as
bewildered, and who feel short-changed and are asking: What exactly is
Babangida saying?
On Sunday, February 4, when the
news hit the airwaves that President Babangida had also issued a statement on
the state of the nation under President Muhammadu Buhari, there was a buzz, a
wave of excitement across the country. People kept asking: after Buhari, who
else is going to stand up and speak? Will T. Y. Danjuma say something too? When
are we going to hear from Abdusalami Abubakar, the peace-maker? And when will
the prayer warrior-statesman, Yakubu Gowon, also say something to Nigerians?
Shehu Shagari. Ernest Shonekan. Nigerians believe that there is a special
category of Nigerians, better known as “Owners of Nigeria”, who at every point
determine the country’s fortunes or direction.
READ MORE ON:
It is an elite, bourgeois class
of decision-makers whose privileges and influence are considered primary and
even superior to democracy. It is strange that a people would admit this to be
given and inevitable, under a democratic dispensation, but the truth is that
Africans even when they claim to be democratic, nurse in their subconscious a
primordial subservience to the potency of divine or stolen privileges and
status. The subsistence and sustainability of this mentality poses a great
threat to the democratic process in Africa. So, when Babangida issued a
statement, it was as if another god had spoken. Babangida was labelled the
“Prince of the Niger” by his biographers. The Prince spoke on Sunday, February
4, and all the newsrooms jumped into action. Whatever he said should ordinarily
be of interest to the public. It would sell the newspapers and the websites.
More importantly, it will generate public interest and further stimulate public
debate. And what did he talk about? He talked about the state of the nation-
the hottest topic in Nigeria at the moment, on the lips of every one, earlier put
together so eloquently by Olusegun Obasanjo.
On Sunday Talk Show I have been anchoring on Arise
News TV, since August 2017 when the statement was released. It sounded like a
bombshell.To
restructure our programme content for the day and move Babangida’s statement to
the top. Now said to have been authored by or not by Ibrahim Babangida or by
his spokesperson, Kassim Afegbua, the now controversial statement to use that
famous phrase, “spoke truth to power”. It was a well-calibrated, well-timed
statement, which took the content of Obasanjo’s earlier statement several steps
further. It made the point that Nigeria is at a crossroads, certainly adrift
and that it needed to be rescued by the younger generation – what he called “a
digital leadership”, as opposed to “analogue leadership.” This was a brilliant
point at a time when Nigerians were asking for a “Not-too-young-to-run”,
“third-force”, alternative movement.
READ MORE ON:
This Babangida statement didn’t
ask Buhari not to run, I mean not so expressly, but it said we should move
beyond the crossroads by voting for leadership that is inclusive, consultative,
interactive, accountable, competitive and competent. Whereas Obasanjo was
direct, this Babangida statement was full of innuendo and sarcasm. He went a
step further by raising issues such as campaign finance, community policing and
new paradigms. Like Obasanjo, he stressed the need to rebrand Nigeria and
rebrand politics, the power of the vote, and the value of security and
inclusivity. This was an explosive, brilliant statement that was reflective of
a certain, growing level of consensus in Nigerian politics and society. We
discussed the statement on the programme and promised a follow-up.
But we then stepped out of the
studio only to hear that President Babangida had disowned this insightful
statement.
READ MORE ON:
He was misquoted. He didn’t say so. The statement was authored, we
learnt, by Kassim Afegbua – Babangida’s spokesman – who had gone to town
without his principal’s approval. The confusion threw the newsrooms into
disarray. Journalists were even accused of misrepresenting the former military
President. In due course, a second statement, presented as personally signed by
Babangida hit the airwaves. This second statement was wishy-washy, written in
barely readable prose, cowardly in every material particular, and I dare say, a
PR disaster. So poor in conception and execution was this second statement that
the media refused to withdraw the first statement, instead they chose to talk
about the drama, the confusion, the controversy over Babangida’s statement. The
confusion became the story. The refutation was downplayed.
No statesman should put himself
in that kind of ridiculous situation. When he speaks again, nobody will take
him seriously, because they would not know if the voice is Jacob’s or Esau’s.
Before dusk, it was further reported that the Inspector-General of Police had
declared Kassim Afegbua wanted. Afegbua,
READ MORE ON:
I salute his courage, stood his ground
by insisting that the first statement by Babangida was authentic and that it
had been issued under his imprimatur, and that it represents his true and
correct position on the state of the nation. I don’t know what IGP Ibrahim Idris’s
problem is. He probably needs a refresher course on how to be an Inspector
General of Police.
As at the time of this writing,
he has not denied that he wants Afegbua arrested. But for what really? – For
issuing a statement on behalf of his principal, or for expressing an opinion?
If Babangida feels he has been impersonated, or misrepresented, it would be his
duty, not that of the police to say so and to press charges or sack Afegbua. If
Babangida disowns the statement, Kassim Afegbua can claim ownership and excuse
Babangida, since in any case there is nothing in the statement that is of any
threat to either public peace or national security. To ask Buhari not to run,
or Nigerians not to vote for him is a matter of free expression, not a crime
against the state. I’ll return to this anon.
READ MORE ON:
affirms statement, says Nigeria needs new breed of leaders”. It is
curious that only Apparently, it didn’t
occur to other media houses to check with Babangida or they had no access to
him, or they lacked the capacity to dig beyond the confusion. Nonetheless, the story is ineffectual. It doesn’t serve the purpose of the intended
damage control. President Babangida’s biographers further described him, in his
time, as the Machiavellian Prince of Nigerian politics. His critics labelled
him the Maradona.
Years after leaving office, he
has had enough time to make up his mind who he wants to be. He cannot oscillate
between being the Prince of the Machiavelli and at the same time, the dribbler
of the Maradona and still claim to be a statesman. Nigerians are tired of being
dribbled.
READ MORE ON:
It is therefore for this reason
that he owes us a second or third statement, stating clearly, where he stands
in the matter of Nigeria at this moment. We are back as Obasanjo forcefully
argues, at that other moment in 1999, when it was incorrect to sit on the
fence. Without that clarity, it would have been better for Babangida to keep
quiet, rather than to open his mouth and cause confusion as to what exactly he
is saying.
I modify that. The onus is on
President Babangida to choose one out of the two statements that have been
issued in his name. It is possible that he has more than one spokesperson,
working at cross-purposes or there are persons around him who are busy
exploiting the fact of proximity. In this latter group, you would find those I
once referred to as the na-my-brother-dey-there-crowd, you can add to that, the
na-my-daddy-dey-there, na-my-husband-dey-there, na-my-oga-dey-there crowd who
brazenly act on behalf of the man of power, exploiting ethnic and filial
connections and insisting on a self-ascribed immunity for wrong-doing. No statesman
should allow such confusion around him. When Obasanjo spoke, pamphlets of his
full statement were on sale across Nigeria the following morning. Babangida has
spoken but the pamphleteers have not produced copies of his statement because
nobody is exactly sure of what has been said. Whatever message he is trying to
pass across is not clear.
I salute Kassim Afegbua once
more. His current travail projects the plight of spokespersons, not just in
Nigeria but all over the world. The job of a spokesperson is one of the most
difficult, if not the most difficult in the corridors of power. Political
leaders crave love; they want to be seen to be wise and knowledgeable. But when
things go wrong,
READ MORE ON:
they don’t hesitate to throw their spokespersons under the bus.
Often, they feel persons from their clan or faith, or background can better
represent them. However, out of office, a political leader or statesman does
not necessarily have to speak through a spokesperson. If he is big enough and
his message is big enough, he should be able to speak with his own voice and in
his own voice. In this instance, only President Babangida can shed light on the
conundrum: Who has spoken? Babangida or Afegbua? But beyond that, the first
message remains relevant and it is utterly irresponsible if indeed the police
have launched a manhunt on the basis of the expression of an opinion.
This is increasingly a growing
trend in this country today. It is unfortunate. It is sad. At the end of a
National Security Council meeting the other day, a Federal Minister, who seems
to enjoy pooping from the mouth, announced that the security agencies had been
instructed to arrest any notable Nigerian who uses the social media in
particular for hate speech. Only a court of law can legitimately define what
constitutes hate speech. And do ordinary Nigerians have the right to hate
speech, a right that may not be available to notable Nigerians? And who
determines who qualifies as a notable Nigerian? And now on the basis of a
statement on the state of the nation and a little drama around that, the
Inspector General of Police, with no denial from him or his agents, 48 hours
later, has declared a manhunt. We all have a duty to defend the freedom of
speech and the right of every Nigerian to think freely and differ.
READ MORE ON:
Curiously, Kassim Afegbua, the
same man whose right to work and speak we are defending, has now said the news
of the purported manhunt for him is a “cooked up story.” He should make this
matter easy by reporting at the nearest police station! His principal will have
to take a clear stand and put an end to the dribble. Being a statesman requires
the ability to stand by one’s convictions and place national interest above
personal interest and personal security. By the same token, we expect more
statesmen to speak up. When will Gowon, Shagari, Shonekan, Abdusalami Abubakar,
Jonathan and Danjuma speak up? Their silence is not golden in this instance. It
amounts to an abdication of responsibility. For a country that has done so much
for them, they cannot afford to sit on the fence.
x
READ MORE ON:
Subscribe
Socialize