Rivers of blood (3)

The danger to the polity posed by the crisis in Rivers was also properly captured in a powerful and forthright statement by the normally pro-Jonathan Senate President, David Mark. For Mark, the situation in Rivers is unacceptable: “Minority members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot remove, and should therefore never contemplate the impeachment […]

The danger to the polity posed by the crisis in Rivers was also properly captured in a powerful and forthright statement by the normally pro-Jonathan Senate President, David Mark. For Mark, the situation in Rivers is unacceptable: “Minority members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot remove, and should therefore never contemplate the impeachment of the Speaker of the State House of Assembly or anyone else for that matter and should perish the thought if ever they harboured it”.
Aiming at Jonathan and his tail wagging cronies, Mark added: “Our institutions of state must also uphold the constitution at all times and must not in any way encourage the impression that the impunities of the past are possible today. The National Assembly, for the avoidance of doubt, would resist impunity and unconstitutionality”.
What Mark is saying is that the National Assembly will not allow those who claim to transform Nigeria to distract themselves and the country by borrowing from Obasanjo’s book of treachery wherein it is taught that a minority could impeach a speaker, or an unwanted governor unconstitutionally or a state assembly put under lock and key because it refused to kowtow to a rogue politician in Abuja.
Earlier, the Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, had also loudly intervened in the Rivers crisis by laying the blame on Jonathan and his wife. According to Soyinka, some people in the presidency had approached him and attempted to enlist his moral support in their bid to maul Governor Amaechi. In a press statement he issued on 11July 2013, Soyinka rejected the “arithmetic of democracy involved in figures 16 and 19” which is to say that any outstanding vestige of democracy claimed by the presidency has been eliminated by Jonathan’s recognition of Governor Jonah Jang as the chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), having been elected by only 16 governors; instead of Rotimi Amaechi who has the backing of 19 of his colleagues. Professor Soyinka was also contemptuous of Patience Jonathan’s penchant for arrogating political power to herself during which “a state governor is barred from public access anywhere within his own zone of constitutional authority”as evidenced by her 11-day visit to Port Harcourt. During the visit, Mrs Jonathan freely held court, held meetings with Bipi and co and praised some presidential errand boys. Suffice it to say that it was shortly after this visit that five clowns in the RVHA sat down to “impeach” Otelemaba Dan Amachree and “unanimously elected” Evans Bipi as “the new Speaker”. Professor Soyinka’s principled intervention is a serious setback for the presidency, but it is consistent with his anti-oppression and pro-democracy campaign long before Jonathan or Patience dreamt of acquiring or deploying presidential power to endanger the country’s fledgling democracy. Soyinka had publicly opposed Gowon, Obasanjo, Shagari, Buhari, Abacha and is now tackling Jonathan and wife. Soyinka has made it clear that he will switch sides if those he had previously supported changed course. And so in Soyinka’s reckoning, even though the hippopotamus has come to the urban centre, it is still followed by the swamps, thus maintaining its uncouth culture.
But what are the issues? As the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum, Amaechi has opposed the creation of sovereign wealth fund andthe lack of accountability and transparency in the payment for oil subsidy for which the 36 states instituted a court case. Amaechi has also championed the proposal for the creation of state police. But more poignantly, Amaechi has stoutly opposed the ceding of some disputed oil wells to the president’s home state of Bayelsa. It appears Jonathan’s offer to mediate between Bayelsa and Rivers over the Soku oil wells masked the president’s determination to favour the former. Analysts say there is an element of blackmail here as Asari Dokubo has, allegedly, pledged to withdraw support for Jonathan and make fresh trouble if the Soku oil wells are left in the hands of Rivers.
Meanwhile, the new found love between Jonathan’s government and the ex-militants threatens to wipe off the gains of the amnesty programme initiated by former President Umar Musa Yar’adua. Ex-militants are now stupendously rich arising from an ill-advised contract given to them to “protect pipelines” and maritime shores. According to Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa, massive oil theft is fuelling massive acquisition of arms in the Niger Delta; sooner rather than later, the country will come face to face with another round of violence that promises to be more vicious than the one put down by Yar’adua.
The faceoff between Amaechi and Jonathan is actually good for democracy. Those who said Amaechi should not oppose Jonathan simply because they are brothers from the same South-South zone miss the point. If Amaechi supports Jonathan’s 2015 presidential ambition simply because they are brothers, for what reason should people in the North or South West do the same? Democracy allows for the contestation of the same office by two brothers. After Gordon Brown resigned, having been defeated by Cameron’s Conservatives in the 2010 British elections, both Ed Miliband and David Miliband contested for the leadership of the Labour Party and for good measure; Ed triumphed over his elder brother, David.It didn’t matter to the Labour politicians (and Ed) that David had announced his candidature for the party leadership earlier than his younger brother.
Our sham democracy is bound to have its heroes, and Governor Amaechi is one of its leading heroes. No governor has been so embattled, and will remain so, in this Republic.