Posted to the Web: Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The situation demands from our political leaders that they subordinate their quest for power to a transcendental resolve to avoid taking the road that would lead to the ruin of our fledgling nation which they profess to love so much. The crisis that now stares us in the face puts to the test their profession of love for the nation, and would determine whether it is mere lip-service or a truly genuine love.

2. Several unresolved fundamental issues are entangled in the present crisis situation, and which call for resolution. The resolution called for must be inspired and informed by a due sense of unstinted patriotism, truly altruistic statesmanship and a self-denying willingness to sacrifice personal ambition for the overall interest of the nation. For, unless the nation is preserved in existence, a personal ambition to rule it is futile.

(B) ROTATION OF THE PRESIDENCY ON THE BASIS OF THE GEO - POLITICAL ZONES
3. It should be frankly acknowledged that the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a bone of contention that divides the ethnic nationalities comprised in the country, and that access to it and to its enormous powers and resources, determine, to a large extent, their loyalty and attachment to the Nigerian state as well as the meaningfulness of democracy.

4. Democracy is not just an abstract concept. Nor is it just the choice of rulers by the people in a free, fair and truly competitive elections at periodic interval of time. In an important sense, it is, additionally, a political device for organising rulership in such a way as to accommodate and reconcile the diverse and conflicting interests within society in accordance with the dictates of equity and justice. Democracy not anchored on equity and justice, it has been rightly said, is meaningless.

5. Justice is rightly regarded as the “bond of society”, the “cornerstone of human togetherness. “Justice,” wrote James Madison, Fourth President of the United States, “is not only the end of government, it is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” Justice is the condition in which the individual can feel able “to identify’ with society, feel at one with it, and accept its rulings.” An unjust society cannot maintain its unity and cohesion, because it cannot arouse in its members a strong enough feeling of loyalty and allegiance. Injustice not only alienates individuals or groups from the state, what is worse, it also arouses them to disaffection and rebellion.

6. But what is required to meet the needs and demands of equity and justice varies according to peculiar circumstances and problems of each country, in particular, the ethnic or cultural diversity of its people. To be meaningful, therefore, democracy must take into account, it must be rationally related to, a country’s circumstances, its peculiarities and the problems arising from them.

7. Whilst it is important that a person to be elected to rule Nigeria as president should be someone of credible credentials and who is capable of delivering the dividends of democracy to the people, yet, crucially important as that consideration is, it is secondary to, and far less fundamental than, the issue of ensuring equity and justice as between the constituent ethnic nationalities. Not much development can take place in an environment of political and social discord amongst the various ethnic nationalities fighting for equity and justice in order to obtain access to the office of president. It is our fervent hope that whoever is elected to the office will exercise its powers justly and equitably, but far more important and transcendental is the need to assure to the various ethnic nationalities, access to the office in accordance with the dictates of equity and justice.

8. To accept rotation of the presidential office and insist on its rotating between North and South is only to pander to rotation as a mere idea, while denying the country the benefits of unity, peace and stability derivable from an arrangement anchored on equity and justice. Rotation between North and South is somewhat careless of the lessons of our past experience which is all too recent to have been so soon forgotten. The North — South dichotomy, and the domination of the affairs of the country by the North by virtue of its supposed preponderance in population and territorial size, were the seminal factor that brought down the First Republic in a military coup in January 1966, and which culminated in a series of brutal killings and a bloody 30-month civil war. The frightful monster of Northern domination which was supposed to have been buried by the splitting of the country into 12 States in 1967 is now being resurrected from its grave with the active support, strangely, of the author of the 1967 twelve States structure.

9. The demand for power shift to the North in 2007 does not say to which Zone in the North the power is to go, and who is to decide that. Surely, a matter such as this in which the whole country has a vital interest and stake cannot be left to be decided by a group of political leaders aspiring for the office in 2007, however influential those leaders may be, especially as none of them is from the ethnic nationalities in Benue, Plateau and Kogi States for whom it is necessary and desirable, in equity and justice, to assure access to the office on the basis of equality with the other States in the North.

10. Although, after more than seven years of the President Obasanjo administration, the Zones are recognised only in administrative practices, and have not as yet been given legal backing, not to talk of being incorporated into the Constitution, which requires constitutional amendment, they must be accepted as a political reality and as the basis for the rotation of the presidential office. A major causative factor in the crisis confronting us today is the persistent refusal of President Obasanjo to re-structure the country’s federal system along the lines dictated by equity and justice. And his refusal is based on no patriotic reason than a selfish desire not to permit any diminution in the powers he wields as president over the affairs of the country.

11. It is the view of The Patriots that the rotation of the office among the Zones must begin with the Zones which either have not held it at all (the South — South) or have held it for only six months (the South-East), as against those Zones that have held it for 18, 11, 6 or 5 years. Equity and justice demands that it should be so. It would be grossly, indeed abominably, unjust and inequitable to deny the prior claim of the South-South and South-East to the office while those that have held it for many years are enabled to hold it again before them. The injustice of that is too blatant and dangerous for the unity, peace and stability of the country.

12. The recent tragic experience of other federations in the world that ignored the needs of equity and justice in ordering of their affairs forewarns us of the danger of falling into the same error. The Federation of Yugoslavia held together 62 years by the charismatic force of the personality of its founding father, Marshal Tito, has, after his death and after a war of decimation and ethnic cleansing lasting several years, disintegrated into seven separate and independent states – Bosnia and Herzegovia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Yugoslavia (Serbia), Vojvodina, Slovenia and Crotia. The unhealthy dominance of Russia in the affairs of the former Super Power, the mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), eventually became intolerable to the other 16 constituent units of the union, which had then to be dissolved in 1991 after 74 years (1017-1991), with each unit going its own separate way as an independent republic.

13. Whilst the recent Constitution (Amendment) Bill deserved the death that, for good reasons, befell it in the National Assembly, it seems to us, in view of what is said above, that there is an urgent necessity to amend the Constitution to provide for (a) the rotation of the presidential office among the geo-political zones; and (b) a single, non-renewable term of five years, with an explicit bar against previous incumbents of the office. The suggestion for a single, non-renewable term of five years only recalls the proposal we made in 2003.

14. A single, non-renewable term of five years is pre-eminently necessary and desirable to facilitate the rotation of the presidential office among the zones, and to create in them a feeling that their chances of acceding to the office are real and not too remote, since the turn of each Zone will come sooner than under the system of two terms of four years per term.

15. Anyone elected to the office will have to apply himself assiduously and conscientiously to his responsibilities, knowing that he has just five years to try and accomplish his programme, and he will have only his incompetence to blame if he is not able to do so. We believe that five years is enough time for an energetic, dynamic and well-focused president to accomplish his programme.

16. We also believe that three months from this October is enough time to accomplish the process of constitutional amendment, bearing in mind the urgency and importance of the proposed amendment, provided of course the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly would be willing to play a supportive role, as they are expected to do.

(C) FORMER MILITARY HEADS OF STATES AND THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE
17. There is another urgent constitutional amendment which the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assemblies would make in the next three months, i.e. to extend to a former Head of the Federal Military Government (FMG), the disqualification in section 137 (I)b of the Constitution which provides that “a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if. . ..he has been elected to such office at any two previous election.

18. There is no justification in reason or justice for counting previous incumbency as civilian President, Head of State, Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces under a constitutional democracy and not count previous incumbency as Head of State, Head of FMG, Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces under a military regime. The one is Head of Government just like the other.

Indeed the incumbency of the latter should count more than the former, because it carried much greater powers as an absolutist ruler invested with powers, both legislative and executive, unlimited by a supreme constitution.

19. To focus on difference in designation and in the difference between selection by the Supreme Military Council and election by the people, as the Supreme Court did in Ojukwu v. Obasanio, is to jettison substance for form. In any case, the designation “President” is not forbidden to a military Head of Government, as is shown in the case of President Babangida as military President for eight years from 1985 to 1993. And the fact of wielding powers not conferred by the people at an election — powers far greater than those of a popularly elected President under a constitutional democracy — is all the more reason why incumbency as a military Head of the FMG should count for purposes of disqualification under section 137(1)(b)

20. Furthermore, it is unfair that someone who has held office as Head of State/Head
22. Realising, rather belatedly, the injustice of his action and the endorsement of it by the Supreme Court, President Obasanjo secured the enactment by the National Assembly in 2004 of a law which gives to the littoral States the same share of the revenue from off-shore oil as they have in on-shore oil, thus abolishing the artificially — contrived and ill-motivated dichotomy between them. Unfortunately, the 2004 Act and the further ameliorating package announced in April 2006 have failed to accomplish the intended object of removing the feeling of grievance among the people of the Niger Delta.

23. President Obasanjo should never have brought the suit which resulted in the manipulated decision of the Supreme Court. The harm has been done passions had been incensed, trust destroyed, and the sense of identification with the state alienated. The President has adamantly refused to do the very thing that would have undone the harm, namely the re-structuring of the federal system.

24. We appeal to the Niger Delta militants that, having demonstrated as forcefully as they can, their anger at the injustice of the deprivation of their legitimate claim, they should now stay their hands, so as not to derail the election that will bring to an end the administration that perpetrated the injustice against them or frustrate the prospect of restructuring following the expected change of leadership in 2007.

(E) ELONGATION OF PRESIDENT OBASANJO’S TERM OF OFFICE BEYOND 29 MAY, 2007
25. We take the opportunity of this Public Statement on the State of the Nation to condemn in the strongest term the attempt made through the Constitution (Amendment) Bill to elongate President Obasanjo’s tenure beyond 29 May, 2007, and to commend all who played a key role in killing it — the National Assembly, the print and electronic media, the civil society organisations and individuals. They saved our democracy and the nation from looming destruction.

26. We also take the opportunity to warn against any further tenure elongation plans in whatever form — the Interim National Government plot and an other such plots. Any action by anyone that might derail the forthcoming election should be avoided as that may enable President Obasanjo to continue in office under section 135 of the Constitution.
(F) 2007 ELECTIONS

27. The fate of this country hangs as much on the presidential office being rotated among the Zones in accordance with the dictates of equity and justice as on the general elections due in 2007 being conducted in a free, fair and truly competitive manner without the rigging that characterised all previous elections in the country. Rigging poses grave danger for democracy, and we therefore strongly condemn it.

28. There is a by no means unfounded fear in the country about the credibility of an election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as presently constituted, and about the capability of the Commission to conduct a free and fair election. Despite the word “independent” in its name, the independence of the Commission is suspect in the eyes of most Nigerians.

29. As, however, INEC is a body established and constituted by the Constitution, with powers also prescribed by the Constitution no changes in its constitution and powers seem possible or desirable in the time between now and the date for the elections.

/We are therefore left with little option than to admonish the Chairman of INEC, Professor lwu, to be alive to the awesome burden of his responsibilities and to live up to his solemn promise to the nation that the elections will be conducted fairly and creditably. At the same time, there is need for us, as a nation, to be alert and vigilant, and ready to mobilize the forces of civil society to rise in protest against any perceived attempt to rig the elections.

30 The Police, like INEC, have a key role in ensuring free and fair elections. We therefore admonish them, as we did INEC to be alive to the responsibility they owe to the nation in this regard.
But admonition needs to be supplemented by some positive measures, limited as
31 they are:

(i) The names of electoral officials should be published 3 months before elections, and such officials must not include members of political parties.
(ii) Steps should be taken to prosecute persons who commit electoral offences; to check the lapses and derelictions of the past when no prosecutions were ever instituted against offenders, a special, independent body should be set up by statute, with power to undertake such prosecutions, subject of course to the authority of the Attorney-General under the Constitution.

(iii) Election tribunals should be constituted and names of their members announced before the elections.
I(G) THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC)
32. Not only are its powers under its constituent statute unconstitutional and illegal, but also many of its actions are not within its unconstitutional powers. The EFCC is thus a case of illegal power being exercised in a manner not in accord with the enabling illegal power. An act done within power is illegal if the enabling power is illegal but we are here talking about an act which is illegal because its enabling power is illegal and because it is done outside its illegal enabling power. The EFCC therefore confronts us with a case of double illegality, of illegality upon illegality.

33. The lawless activities of the EFCC, aimed at subverting the autonomy of the State Governments, are increasingly assuming terroristic proportions. Its armed men terrorise State after State — Bayelsa, Plateau, Jigawa,. Benue, rendering the terrotised State a helpless captive. From time to time reports. appear in the newspapers of state government offices being deserted and of commissioners arid other functionaries fleeing in fear generated by the visit of an invading force of EFCC armed operatives, with some of these functionaries being arrested and taken away to Abuja or Lagos.

34. The latest of the EFCC’s atrocious acts is the siege it laid in August 2006 on the Federal High Court Abuja for some twenty hours in pursuit of the Speaker and other members of the Plateau State House of Assembly, who have only just been released from its custody on bail ordered by the court, for allegedly misappropriating N9 million given to each of them for projects in their various constituencies. The President no doubt glories, at least he takes not a little delight, in EFCC’s outrageous subversions and illegalities.

35. The EFCC is President Obasanjo’s masterstroke. In setting up the Commission and directing its lawless actions, he is simply exploiting the intensely emotive appeal which every measure aimed at fighting corruption evokes among Nigerians. Despite their monstrous illegality, the actions of the EFCC are regrettably applauded by the public.

36. The war against corruption is without doubt a worthy cause which should be fought relentlessly with everyone’s wholehearted support but without exemption for anyone. It should, however, be fought according to, not in subversion of, the rules embodied in the supreme law of the country, which is like a glue that holds us together as one polity. The EFCC and its vendetta against opponents and critics of President Obasanjo, euphemistically called “war” against corruption, can never be a substitute for the Constitution as the foundation of our togetherness.

(H) THE FEUD BETWEEN PRESIDENT OBASANJO AND VICE-PRESIDENT ATIKU ABUBAKAR
37. The no-holes-barred confrontation between President Obasanjo and Vice- President Atiku Abubakar has all the characteristics of a destructive feud that may engulf the whole nation. The situation calls for caution and restraint on both sides. The Patriots view the matter with grave concern, and will address it in due course as the situation unfolds.