NORTHERN GUVS: UNDERSTANDING UNSEENS

And yet when the NGF came out with it, it was as if the governors were announcing the discovery for an HIV vaccine. The media was instantly split along their respective interests: some used the voting result that saw 10 governors voting in favour of zoning and seven against it, while others found it more […]

And yet when the NGF came out with it, it was as if the governors were announcing the discovery for an HIV vaccine. The media was instantly split along their respective interests: some used the voting result that saw 10 governors voting in favour of zoning and seven against it, while others found it more rewarding to take their story from the point of view of the bland communiqué. On July 28, the day after the long-awaited meeting, the mainstream Nigerian media gave its critics one more reason to smirk; the headlines were quite revealing.

“NOTHERN GOVERNORS VOTE FOR ZONING” (Daily Trust); “JONATHAN FREE TO CONTEST” (THISDAY); “NO SHOW” (The Sun); “JONATHAN FREE TO CONTEST” (PUNCH).

If the Northern Governors’ Forum had paid for it (and some of them regularly do pay for it), they couldn’t have hoped for a better and more favourable coverage from the media.  In effect the media had assisted the NGF in achieving what ought to have been a very dicey balance, which is to oppose Mr. Jonathan while making it awkward for him to retaliate, should he be inclined to do so. As it is the ten governors (Adamawa, Gombe, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kwara, Niger, Sokoto, Zamfara) are seen as heroes; since the vote, several advertorials have appeared in various newspapers celebrating what is perceived (correctly) in the North as an exceptionally courageous and bold stand by the ten governors.

Of course one man’s hero is another man’s villain. To the presidency, those ten bold men are anything but heroes; in the Villa they are perceived as renegades and the whole calculation now must be on how to neuter their potency. This is arguably one of three most useful outcomes of the July 27 meeting. The façade has come off and now everybody knows where everybody stands. Before now loquacious political opportunists such as (former) professor Jerry Gana would probably corner Dr. Jonathan and tell him they had managed to sway the entire members of the NGF and all he needed to do was to provide the necessary logistics for the usual reasons. Now the president, for whatever it is worth, can save a few million dollars. An irresistible digression here: how on earth did a PhD like Jonathan allow himself to be convinced that Jerry Gana is still capable of talking a rat into eating poison? There probably isn’t a decent rat in any corner of the world that would trust a piece of meat from Jerry Gana. If Mr President is in any doubt all he needs to do is to ask General T. Y. Danjuma for a copy of Gana’s report on how the good professor spent the campaign contribution he (T. Y. Danjuma) gave him when Gana made a comical bid for the presidency back in 2007. Then he would know.

Anyway, that was just a digression. The second important but latent outcome of the NGF meeting is that it has presented Nigerians with a great opportunity to actually gauge the personality, temperament and the size of President Jonathan’s heart. It has always been said that the strength of a government is measured by the degree of its tolerance, not by the number of rebellion it crushes.  Did you know, and did you think it would ever happen, that Mr Sam Nda-Isaiah, LEADERSHIP newspaper publisher, actually paid tribute to former President Obasanjo for his tolerance of dissent as compared to the late Yar’adua who tried to run him out of business?  Would Mr. Jonathan rise to the occasion, play the statesman, recognize the rights of people to say “yes” or “no” according to their whim or reason; or would he lower the bar and go after those that he perceives as his enemies?

The NGF communiqué might have been bland and ambiguous, but none of the major players was fooled, least of all Jonathan. Nor are the 10 “rebel” governors under any illusions as to the likely backlash their heroics could generate. If the president chose to play dirty and mean, he would also try to be subtle about it. Some of the 10 governors would probably begin to see their men dislodged from influential positions (a curios cabinet reshuffle after only three months is said to be in the making); the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) hitherto a clumsy national embarrassment since 2007 would probably get busier now as it goes after perceived opponents (take Adamawa for instance) etc, etc. But the ultimate weapon would be against those governors seeking for a second term in office and those contemplating a Senate seat, having completed their two terms. Thus if President Jonathan chose to go this way the polity will start to be overheated with blackmail, intimidation, victimization and the likes. In a negative way, this is the second opportunity that the NGF meeting has offered Nigerians: a chance to see the man under the hat.

Thirdly the NGF meeting and its outcome has also destroyed the president’s earlier hypothesis that if he makes any categorical statement about his plans for 2011, he would be diverting attention away from the business of governance.

Obviously the president had hoped for somebody else—preferably the powerful governors’ forum—to nudge him towards a suitable decision. Well, as The Sun newspaper headline said, “No Show”. For all the good his silence on 2011 has produced, he might as well have made his declaration yesterday. Maybe the president hasn’t noticed yet, but the whole business of governance is now about his “yes or no”. And sad as it is, it would continue to be so; and when he eventually makes up his mind the business of governance would still be about what he has decided.