In defence of Goodluck Jonathan

Even with its lyrics built around the consuming passion of a romantic relationship, the hit pop record of the early seventies “I stand accused” by late Afro American platinum class singer Isaac Hayes, offers significant lessons for contemporary Nigerian politics and politicians. In that record the musician sang “I stand accused of loving you too […]

Even with its lyrics built around the consuming passion of a romantic relationship, the hit pop record of the early seventies “I stand accused” by late Afro American platinum class singer Isaac Hayes, offers significant lessons for contemporary Nigerian politics and politicians. In that record the musician sang “I stand accused of loving you too much. I hope it is not a crime, ‘cause if it is I am guilty …”. The first lesson from it for the disciples of Cupid, is that love as an emotion is not quantifiable and therefore can neither be too much or too little. Another is that ignorance of the limit to what can pass in the expression of love for anybody, or anything which involves a consequent infringement on the rights and welfare of others, can be a crime.  For instance love that is driven by blindness is not acceptable as it often leads to indulgences which easily lead to errors and blunders.
Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan joined the league of past presidents and heads of state of this country on the historic day of May 29th 2015, and since then has expectedly been contending with his dose of post tenure excoriation, coming to him in torrents. It is not as if during his tenure he was spared the agony of routine denigration by those who felt justified to do so. In fact the coincidence of his tenure with the full bloom of the social media, along with its frosty relationship with the conventional media, did not help his case as he turned out to be the most criticized Nigerian leader by both platforms, in history.
It is also on record that instead of addressing the multitude of grievances and issues raised in the conventional and social media, especially the more credible reports of actual failure of governance, his camp chose the less dignified option of raising a pack of ‘attack dogs’, who as they hoped would counter the media onslaught with a cocktail of brickbats, half-truths and sundry invectives. Many Nigerians will not easily forget the roles played by the F- Kayodes, Okupes and Omokris in helping or killing that administration, depending on which angle they are seen from. 
Did Jonathan’s failure to use the big stick in taming the shrew in his camp then and change the course of the history of both his party the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as well as the country, stem from his loving them too much? Incidentally the attacks on his so far have largely featured the vicarious blame of superintending over, but not directly engaging, in acts that constitute rape on the common patrimony. This is just is the PDP has ingeniously also blamed its failure in the last polls on him. Yet he did not crown himself as the candidate of the party in the polls. Did he?
In the context of the foregoing,  this new wave of pejorative comments about him  easily qualify as extensions of the bring ‘Jonathan Down’ campaign which finds additional impetus in the popular culture of blaming every problem in the country on a most convenient fall guy – this time himself. It is therefore difficult to place outside the context of the foregoing, the new kite presently flying in media and social circles that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)is contemplating inviting Jonathan to answer questions over the misdeeds or otherwise of some public officers who served during his tenure, remains an interesting development. For while the argument may enjoy some appeal among his traducers, the entire spectacle puts into focus how little appreciation of the workings of the public service, actually drives much of the social commentaries in the nation’s public space.
By statutory provisions the EFCC, as a vanguard in the nation’s fight against corruption has clear cut powers to demand for information from, invite, interrogate and if necessary prosecute anybody in this country including former presidents and governors who in any case have been stripped of the cocoon of immunity. Hence the circumstance in which the anti-graft agency invites Jonathan does not qualify intrinsically as unthinkable or impossible. Whoever has enjoyed the lifetime privilege of leading this great country must remain accountable to the people as long as is necessary.
However the same law also provides that officers at the helm of affairs in the nation’s public service, not only as president or governor, should at all times exercise due discretion in decision making, with a view to favour and promote national interest. It is the same sense of commitment and sacrifice to national interest which drives the soldier and policeman to risk and possibly lose his or her life – as sweet as it is – that should drive any other public officer, whether high or low ranking, to place national interest first. It is for that reason that in some countries public officers who indulge in unacceptable acts of abuse of office – in particular the loot of public funds, are executed just as soldiers who are guilty of acts of sabotage are court-martialed.
Hence while a president may be vicariously responsible for the conduct of business of governance, ample room exists for officers down the line to pursue personal interests under the alibi that they are responding to instructions from the proverbial ‘Oga at the top’. Just as well the same window of liberty of discretion can also be exploited by the very ‘Oga at the top’ to exploit the system for personal gains. This situation which provides for the serial debasement and detoriation of the public service like a candle that is burning at both ends, remains responsible for the state of affairs featuring diminished dividends from the agencies of governance.
Admissibly,all that the Jonathan administration can offer the country today are lessons of history. Yet the present administration has so much to gain from such, even if all that may matter is the value of that dispensation as mere dispensable ‘cannon fodder’ in a theatre of war, to identify red flags in the running of the affairs of this country. Standard military operations often benefit from the use of disposable assets to attract fire from the enemy that may be hiding in an ambush. That service alone is an invaluable assistance from Jonathan to Buhari.
For instance the2016 budget as presented to the National Assembly last week by President Muhammadu Buhari features significant expectations by the people from the government and by the government from the public service, which is the machinery for providing deliverables of good governance. It does not require any endowment of clairvoyance to anticipate challenges for the administration given that while the 2016 budget parades commendable prospects for change, the actualization of such will depend on the same public service establishment which has been servicing all past administrations – Jonathan’s inclusive. This is even as the provisions of the budget for the needed reforms in the public service will remain an issue beyond whatever credit or otherwise goes to the Jonathan administration.
In that regard therefore, while the complement of reforms launched by the present administration enjoy merit, their implementation provides a welter ofdaunting challenges,which are enormous enough to render any diversion of efforts at chasing Jonathan and his team down a hole, wasteful and counter-productive.