I will not be President — Abiola (I)

Should we congratulate Chief M.K.O Abiola for winning a presidential election but was not allowed to be president? I ask the question because it was his wish not to be president. In a New Nigerian Newspaper parley with Innocent Oparadike, published in the editions of May 31, June 1 and June 3, 1985, and reproduced […]

Should we congratulate Chief M.K.O Abiola for winning a presidential election but was not allowed to be president? I ask the question because it was his wish not to be president.

In a New Nigerian Newspaper parley with Innocent Oparadike, published in the editions of May 31, June 1 and June 3, 1985, and reproduced by Weekly Trust of July 31 -August 6, 1998, Abiola was quoted as saying: “And saying I could be head of state. No! Absolutely not! My family has said absolutely no to that and I will never be in-sha-Allah, I don’t pray to be. I just don’t want to be the head of state”.

I decided to give Abiola a space to tell his story because many Nigerians do not know that it was he who requested God not to make him president. Listen to Jamiu Abiola, a son to Abiola:” Chief MKO Abiola won the election all over the country and it was not just in South West alone that he won. But things are done in tribal manner in this country. Maybe they will have a change of mind, but as far as I am concerned it will be very difficult for them to do so because this country is a tribalistic country” (Vanguard, June 12, 2017 page 47).                                    

The election of Abiola was a watershed in the history of Nigeria. He won handsomely in the north to the extent of defeating his only opponent, Bashir Tofa, in his state (Kano) local government and ward. Notable politicians like Abubakar Rimi and Sule Lamido delivered Kano fair and square to him. It was an opportunity to cement Nigerian unity. Unfortunately, it was mismanaged by experts in conspiracy theory. Agreed northerners did not come out to defend June 12. But they were also not on the streets to defend the victory of two northerners (Shehu Yar’Adua and Adamu Ciroma) in the primary elections of the only two political parties at that time (SDP and NRC). The cancellation of the primary elections paved way for the emergence of Abiola, yet, he was voted in the north. It is not in the character of Northerners to be on the street because of party politics. They expected Abiola to sort it out with his friends who annulled his election. May Allah forgive the shortcomings of Abiola and admit him to paradise for the many lives he touched as a legendary philanthropist.        

Sincerity, Not Restructuring

Some years back, I was invited to deliver a lecture at the swearing-in of officials of Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) of my local government. I started the lecture with a question: “I heard many people shouting: Nigeria sai mai gaskiya (leadership of Nigeria is for the honest) but I never heard anybody saying that the leadership of your local government “sai mai gaskiya”. You don’t want an honest person as chairman?” They burst out laughing. They got the message: that they wanted a transparent and accountable government at federal level only, far away from them. This applies to virtually all the local governments in the country. At local level, people do not want anybody to disturb their leaders who support their wedding and naming ceremonies with public fund. Are they sincere?

Governors of the South West started a process of integrating their states, but could not go far. Can people of the zone rely on the governors for restructuring, if it is defined as a return to regions of the First Republic of six political zones? Can people who are reluctant to integrate their states, allow the dissolution of the states, with all the consequences on them and their political supporters? Why is it that people who go to Abuja to champion restructuring, cannot go back to their states and mobilize people for the dissolution of the states? Don’t be surprised that the person addressing the press on why Nigeria must go back to the regions of the First Republic or disintegrate is a chairman of a movement for the creation of a state.

If by restructuring people are referring to a review of power-sharing formula of the federating units, does this require any agitation? Why can’t their representatives in the National Assembly push for constitutional amendments to effect the desired reforms? Are the members of the National Assembly from the South East not pushing for the South East Development Commission? Why should reforms on federalism be regional or ethnic agenda? Are there no advocates of review of the federalism across the regions? If the objective of the review is to empower states and local governments, does their performance justify any confidence in them?

Those who perceive restructuring as going back to regionalism, or, a review of power sharing formula of the federating units are clear of what they want. The only problem is that most of them are not sincere on what they are saying. But they are better than people who keep shouting for restructuring without an idea of what it means or how it can be achieved. The approach of Nigerian politicians to their favorite topic of marginalization reminds me of a man I knew who had an interesting slogan. People cheered him by shouting:”bugi mai gaskiya” (beat the truthful one) and he would reply “don makaryaci ya saduda” (so that the liar will be subdued)

Restructuring has become a national issue courtesy of South West politicians. They started with a call for sovereign National Conference. It was not possible for them to succeed on this because by sovereign they meant that whatever was the outcome of the conference, including the dismemberment of the country, was binding on the government. How can Professor Yemi Osinbajo as Acting President, for example, accept this, knowing what Chief Obafemi Awolowo said about dismemberment of Nigeria: This is what Awolowo told leaders of thought in Western Nigeria:

“It is extremely sad to note that some leaders of thought in the country are seriously suggesting that the so-called four component units of the country should go their own separate ways as so many sovereign states. Those who advocate this course of action are invoking terrible, unknowable and unpredictable disasters and catastrophes on the heads of the 56 million innocent people of this country”.

…To be continued next week