The
raucous clamour by a section of the Nigerian elite to control the Presidency is
gathering dangerous momentum. While it is a fundamental right of any individual
or group to aspire to high political office, the strident claim of these
individuals and groups purporting to speak for “Northern Nigeria” has assumed
proportions that are potentially destabilising to Nigeria’s corporate
existence. But since their claims are not grounded on any sound
constitutional or legal basis, it is about time every right thinking Nigerian
insisted on constitutionalism.
The
arrogance of these “turn-by-turn” claimants to the Presidency is matched only
by the illogicality on which they base their “divine right” to the Presidency
in 2015. When a small group of people arrogate to themselves the right to
determine who becomes the president and for how long in a federation of over
400 ethnic nationalities, then the imperative of a sovereign national
conference becomes all too glaring.
One
of the power rotation advocates, Ango Abdullahi, was at it again a few days
ago. “There is no going back on the Presidency returning to the North in 2015,”
he declared with finality. Speaking on behalf of the Northern Elders Forum, he
reiterated the irritating mantra that “the North magnanimously conceded power
to the South in 1999” and now wants it (the Presidency) back. This is hogwash.
Even the world’s banana republics have left this stage.
There is nowhere in the
1999 Constitution where rotation of power is mentioned or prescribed.
Section 131 of the Constitution that spells out the qualifications of a person
seeking election to the office of President does not stipulate rotation.
Section 137 that lists disqualifications does not preclude anyone from seeking
the job on account of place of origin in furtherance of rotation either.
Successive constitution amendments since 1999 have also rejected the
retrogressive rotation or turn-by-turn principle.
It
need hardly be said that those claiming a mandatory turn at the Presidency
therefore are operating outside the law and should be promptly told so, and
strongly too. The insolence has gone far enough. No group, irrespective of
social status, has the right to dictate to the rest of the country where the
next president should come from, except through the free play of party
nominations and the ballot box.
Those who believe the president should be
an indigene of a particular area can use their votes at election time to
actualise their agenda. That is the essence of democracy; the candidate that
scores the highest number of votes and meets the constitutionally specified
geographical spread in electoral support carries the day.
It
is rude and totally unacceptable, as some have been doing, to demand that
people from certain geopolitical zones should not aspire for the office, but
stand down for persons from a particular zone. The claim that there is an
agreement among some persons to rotate power is gratuitous, unconstitutional
and irrelevant to the vast majority of Nigerians who were not party to such an
agreement and never mandated anyone to represent them at private nocturnal
meetings among some unrepresentative power brokers.
Isa Kaita, a former
governor of old Kaduna State, put it this way: “…it is the turn of the North to
produce the president. It was an agreement; it is our turn, our right and our
time.” His perverse logic re-echoes what members of his faction have said
anytime someone from the south of Nigeria becomes president: “…this gentleman’s
agreement was reached between the North and South, that the North should have
eight years and the South eight years.”
This
is unequivocally awful. Who nominated the delegates to that forum if ever there
was one? Under what law was the caucus convened? Surely, the conspiratorial
plans of a group of unelected persons plotting their own interests cannot be
binding or take precedence over the constitution in the 21st century.
Central
Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi, got it right when he said, “If we believe in
turn-by-turn or (that) a president should come from a particular section of the
country, it means we are promoting mediocrity. This is the time for us to
retrace our steps and ask ourselves fundamental questions as to what kind of
leaders we want. We need to promote transparency and credible elections; it is
not just free and fair voting, but also free and fair elections.”
In
any case, if some persons from some Northern states claim it is their turn to
produce the President in 2015, when will it be the turn of the geopolitical
zones that have not produced the country’s head of state or government since
independence in 1960?
From 1960 to January 1966, the federal prime
minister/head of government hailed from the current Bauchi State in the
North-East. Between 1966 and May 1999, a 33-year period, one South-Easterner
ruled for six months and a South-Westerner for three-and-a-half years.
Northerners occupied the top post in succession for the remaining 29 years.
The
agitators also conveniently forget that rotation was discussed only within a
caucus of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party. It is insulting to attempt to
foist such internal party arrangements on the entire country. It is doubly
deceitful when persons who are not even members of the party also join in
clamouring for turn-by-turn on the basis of an alleged internal party agreement
they were not privy to. This power arrogance should end. Nigerians have noted
that those bent on violating the basic democratic tenet of free choice are the
same people who stridently oppose a national conference where such issues can
be amicably resolved.
Politics
of appeasement must end. There is no alternative to constitutionality and the
rule of law. All contests for political power must be in accordance with the
basic law. Making threats and intimidating the majority in furtherance of an
unsustainable claim of entitlement is counterproductive. Such mendacious claims
make the sovereign national conference ever more imperative. Every Nigerian
should now work for a national conference where the basis of our federation
will be freely discussed and re-negotiated.
Source: The Punch
No comments:
Post a Comment