By the way, Jonathan, in denying
any agreement to serve for only one
term, dared his opponents to
produce any evidence as proof. On
that score, those who must be most
embarrassed are the Governor of
Niger State, Babangida Aliyu, and
Katsina State Governor, Shema.
President Goodluck Jonathan’s media
chat was more of a minus-plus.
Accordingly, he remains standing with
his future political fate to be decided
by his party’s nomination exercise. All
the same, he opened new areas of
contention. He would not be Goodluck
Jonathan if he did not. Out of the lot,
two are very remarkable.
The first is that he cannot make his
stand known on whether he will
contest the 2015 presidential election
moreso, as he claimed though wrongly,
in compliance with the provisions of
the Electoral Act. The second
contentious point Jonathan made was
the denial of any agreement with
anybody or group, NOT to contest in
2015. At a glance, it may appear that
Jonathan upset all criticisms on the two
points, which is not the case.
It is not correct, as Jonathan claimed,
that he would be violating the
Electoral Act if he declared his
intention to contest the 2015
presidential elections. Specifically, the
act neither limits the timing of
declaration of intent to contest, nor
criminalises declaration of the intent.
The only violation under the Electoral
Act is election campaign if commenced
before three months to the elections, a
stipulation which in itself violates
series of fundamental human rights
under Nigerian constitution. Some of
these are right to assemble, right to
hold and express political views, etc.
Equally, it is a matter of honour and
integrity on any matter of agreement
among associates or contemporaries.
From all indications, the controversy
on whether Jonathan should have
contested the 2011 elections could not
have died down within the PDP
without some sort of agreement. The
only snag might be that in that
particular case, the agreement was
not documented and if insisted on by
one of the parties to the agreement,
could easily have been interpreted as
lack of trust in fellow party men.
Unfortunately, that trust emerges
today to have been misplaced.
On the other hand, Jonathan’s
opponents within the PDP have poorly
mishandled their case in basing their
challenge to a determination to return
the presidency to the North. Hence,
the counter punch of Jonathan’s
supporters that their man (quite
rightly) is entitled to two terms of four
years each under the constitution.
Jonathan’s opponents could have,
instead, faulted him for lack of
integrity in dishonouring a
gentleman’s agreement, a stand which
could be pursued to the convention for
the nomination.
By the way, Jonathan, in denying any
agreement to serve for only one term,
dared his opponents to produce any
evidence as proof. On that score, those
who must be most embarrassed are
the Governor of Niger State, Babangida
Aliyu, and Katsina State Governor,
Shema. The challenge to Jonathan to
honour the disputed agreement was
first thrown by Governor Aliyu. From
the least expected quarters, Senator
Kanti Bello came to the defence of
President Jonathan that there was
never such an agreement.
That further widened the row over the
agreement as Governor Shema
impliedly affirmed the existence of the
agreement about which he claimed
Senator Kanti Bello, also from Katsina,
was ignorant. Jonathan has since
turned the table against Governor
Shema by recruiting him for the dog
fight against Rivers State Governor,
Chibuke Amaechi, in the battle for the
leadership of Nigerian Governors
Forum. Sensing defeat by Amaechi,
Katsina’s Shema stepped down for
Plateau State Governor, Jonah Jang,
who still lost to Amaechi. Little wonder
that Jonathan is now so frontal in
challenging anybody, who cares for
the proof of the agreement.
No matter the strong feelings, history
both at home and abroad is on
Goodluck Jonathan’s side. In Nigeria,
in particular, dishonouring agreement
had always been employed as a trap
employed by public figures to have the
edge over rivals.
In 1992, Egyptian veteran diplomat,
Boutros Ghali, was virtually selected
by the United States as the sixth
Secretary-General of the United
Nations, strictly on the condition that
he would serve for only one term of
four years. When the moment came in
1996, Boutros Ghali insisted on
running for a second term. When
reminded on why he changed his mind
against the honourable agreement to
serve for only one term, Boutros Ghali
responded, “only a fool does not
change his mind.”
That submission may attract Goodluck
Jonathan except that United States
vetoed Boutros Ghali out of office after
only one term as the sixth Secretary-
General of United Nations.
Political trap from which the victim
never escaped the predator. That was
what politicians made of every
seeming gentleman’s agreement. The
1959 pre-independence federal
elections ended in a federal coalition
government between Tafawa Balawa’s
Northern Peoples Congress and
Nnamdi Azikiwe’s NCNC, with Balewa
as Prime Minister and Zik as governor-
general, later president in 1963. The
implications were not obvious until
1964 constitutional crisis over that
year’s federal elections.
It suddenly emerged that unlike
before independence, executive
powers, especially authority over
armed forces rested in the Prime
Minister. So, the President/
Commander-in-Chief, Nnamdi Azikiwe,
was advised by his legal experts,
federal attorney-general Taslim Elias,
and legal adviser, Dan Ibekwe. The
dispute over the allegedly rigged 1964
federal elections was, therefore,
settled for “a broad-based NATIONAL
government.”
When Balewa submitted his cabinet
list, it was for only a broad-based
government, deliberately excluding
one of the major political parties to
create a schism with its alliance
partner for alleged betrayal. In the
struggle for political power, that might
even be tolerable. Why unite your
opponents with strength against the
next round of a contest?
The initial January 1966 military coup
and the counter-coup of July 1966
were apparent traps. The January
version was touted as a revolution,
which by historical standard is ever
all-consuming.
The revolt was partially consuming, a
justification similarly touted for the
counter-coup six months later. Also
partially, if disproportionately
consuming, the next in the chain of
command, whatever his role or aim
during the bloody events, was trapped
and had to escape aboard a ship to
United Kingdom where he was
announced as Nigeria’ new high
commissioner.
Owing to disturbing uncertainty about
Nigeria’s future and indeed survival, a
reconciliation conference was held at
Aburi, Ghana, presided over by the
military ruler, General Ankrah. The
agreement voluntarily signed by the
two sides turned out to be a trap,
perhaps, unintended but which
nonetheless not only prolonged but
worsened the crisis, leading to the civil
war. Aburi was not honoured.
After the cancellation of the June 12,
1993 elections, naive politicians and
elites openly called on General Sani
Abacha to “save the country” with the
bargain from him that he would, on
assuming office, de-annul the
elections. General Abacha further
ridiculed the elite and politicians by
declaring that “the June 12, 1993
election was a watershed.” Politicians
were encouraged not only to take
appointments as ministers but also to
recommend elite and intellectuals to
fall into the trap.
It was laughable that Nigerians,
desperate for ministerial
appointments, believed General
Abacha would risk his life in a military
coup to hand-over soonest to civilians.
It was no escape for the next five
years.
To appease the South-West for the
largely peaceful but unrelenting
opposition to the cancellation of the
June 12, 1993 elections, retired
General Olusegun Obasanjo was
recruited and imposed on Nigeria by
his political benefactors, General
Ibrahim Babangida, General
Abdulsalami Abubakar and Lt. General
Aliyu Gusau. The understanding was
that Obasanjo would serve one term of
four years, as an elected president.
Obasanjo agreed but it was a trap for
his benefactors.
Obasanjo breached the agreement and
contested second term, which he also
attempted to breach with the futile
third term bid.
On his part, Goodluck Jonathan
presumably agreed with his party and
governor colleagues to contest for one
term. If Jonathan now breaches the
agreement, it is a pattern not only in
Nigeria politics over the years but also
in the Old PDP.
There was this other fact, dating back
to 2010 or shortly before 2011
elections. Media widely reported that
at a National Working Committee (or a
special caucus) meeting of the PDP,
Jonathan was confronted by genuine
doubters and tactfully requested to
commit himself to contesting for only
one term. Jonathan, according to the
same newspaper reports, neither
confirmed nor challenged the request.
Tony Anenih saved the rising tension
by promising that Jonathan would
serve only one term. How far Tony
Anenih’s assurance can be valid or
tenable in the present circumstances is
anybody’s guess.
Given the history and standard
practice in the PDP, everybody
distrusts another. That was the
message the new President Jonathan
sent out in 2010 when he instantly
sacked the then national chairman,
Vincent Ogbulafor, for announcing
that Jonathan would not contest the
Presidency in 2011.
In the matter of mutual distrust
among PDP members, two dicey
events are worth recalling. The
possibility could then be there that if
Jonathan had agreed to step down in
2011 with a promise (or agreement,
which is never honoured) to be
allowed to contest in 2015, the poor
chap might have been played out.
Equally, if the core PDP had fallen for
President Goodluck Jonathan on his
new mandate in 2011, in the attempt to
amend the constitution to introduce a
single six or seven-year term,
especially on the public assurance that
he, Goodluck Jonathan, would not
contest under the proposed amended
constitutions, he, Jonathan, too would
have trapped the country.
In the PDP, the main expertise is trap-
setting. Accordingly, the lesson for our
public figures is that any such
agreement must be in the hand-
writing of the conceding party and
signed by all the parties involved. It
must also be so worded that the
agreement is legally binding on all the
parties concerned.
Integrity would thereby have been
restored to any undertaking by our
public figures.
