Pro-govt crusaders: Patriots, sycophants or opportunists?

Thus, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo recently decried the unending Boko Haram saga and blamed it on government’s indecisiveness, he inadvertently invited ‘blastings’ from several quarters. While no less a personality in the person of former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon described the criticism as ‘highly irresponsible’ other defenders argued that Obasanjo had no […]

Thus, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo recently decried the unending Boko Haram saga and blamed it on government’s indecisiveness, he inadvertently invited ‘blastings’ from several quarters. While no less a personality in the person of former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon described the criticism as ‘highly irresponsible’ other defenders argued that Obasanjo had no moral basis for his criticism. Some others even appeared piqued by the diction of the criticism. It is however not quite easy to know whether the defenders are sincere patriots, or playing the eye service game or indeed seeking to settle old scores. Rather, what is easy to observe is that the blastings tended to lose sight of some issues. First, that every Nigerian is entitled to his opinion.  According to the express wordings of Section 39(1) of our constitution, “every person is entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”. We must therefore as a free nation allow our citizens to say their minds freely.

In other words, if the controversial Odi prescription in the opinion of Obasanjo is the best way to deal with insurgency, he is free to say so. Those who hold a contrary opinion are also free to canvass it thereby creating a healthy exchange of ideas on a subject. No one is expected to abuse the other. Second, those who elect to defend the President probably forget quite often that the man has officials who are paid to do just that. There is indeed doubt if Doyin Okupe’s disposition especially his eloquence leaves any room for helpers in the business. Third, President Jonathan has himself proven that he understands the Nigeria of today better than both his critics and defenders.  He is fully aware of the implications of the Odi prescription as a son of the soil of the victims. The President confirmed this by the ease with which he articulately presented his reasons in his last media chat for not applying the option to Boko Haram. His reported directive to his aides not to attack his critics on the subject was also underscored by his open declaration at the recently held Holy Ghost Congress of the Redeemed Christian Church of God that he would love to hear people’s criticisms of his government. Here, President Jonathan deserves applause.

Another person who should be similarly applauded is former President Obasanjo who says his mind and hardly plays to the gallery. Whether we like his mannerisms or not, he obviously often speaks for the voiceless.  It was him many years back that helped the rest of us to tell the government of the day to prosecute ‘SAP with a human face’. When he said that the Boko Haram issue should be summarily addressed he was again not saying anything new. Many other leaders who would not say what would displease the government hold the same view. In fact, when some analysts including this columnist argued that dialogue was a better option than military force for handling Boko Haram, we were abused by opinion leaders who could not see why government should in their own words “dialogue with criminals”.  Meanwhile, such an intemperate posture to other people’s suggestions has not been able to bring to an end the avoidable continued killings in the land. For this reason, those who canvass their viewpoints are more useful to society and they should be encouraged to continue like Obasanjo who has affirmed that he will not stop criticizing government. But such critics must not like egoists who think they have a monopoly of knowledge expect that their opinions would be binding on government which in earnest has a pool of suggestions to consider.

This was what helped this column to rationalize the issue of the President’s assets declaration. The point that the President should publicly do it had looked unassailable until someone educated us all that the mandate to disclose the President’s declaration was given by the constitution to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB). A month ago, the Chairman of the CCB, Mr. Sam Saba at a public press conference admitted the failure of his Bureau to so act. He however revealed that the form which the disclosure is to take is according to the constitution, to be prescribed by the National Assembly which is yet to do so. With such exchange of ideas, democracy progressively directs attention to what is begging to be done and by whom. Those who embrace AGIP- the unregistered political party of persons in support of any government in power may in due course be persuaded to put the good of humanity in mind in their hustles by serving not as sycophants and opportunists but as patriots.