President Muhammadu Buhari |
How it
reached the conclusion is uncertain. But the impression is gaining ground among
the apparatchiks of the ruling party that their non-control of the
oil-producing states enumerated above is a national security issue. My guess is
that framing it as a national security issue is intended to mask the real
intention, which is how to mobilise resources for, and triumph in the 2019
general elections. This is against the background of the role that Rivers State
played in the formation, financing, and operation of the ruling party, whose
electoral fortunes might have been impaired without a steady flow of resources
for the electoral contest not only at the national level but in some states as
well.
By
formulating its partisan game-plan as a national security issue, there is
justification in mobilising all relevant institutions of state, as well as all
arms of government, in addressing the “national security issue.” Thus, the
planners in the ruling party seem to have identified the low-hanging fruits
that can be quickly harvested. These low-hanging fruits can be seen in the
outcome of the election petitions filed in the governorship elections in most
states controlled by the PDP. In this wise, it is becoming obvious, even to the
blind, how the Election Petition Tribunals are giving wildly differing
judgments on petitions that have virtually similar facts.
While
petitions filed by the governorship candidates of the PDP are being dismissed,
those filed by candidates of the ruling party against PDP candidates are being
upheld in a manner that leaves even the most broad-minded jurist flabbergasted.
In this sense, we can see how, willy-nilly, the judicial arm of government has
been somewhat co-opted into the ruling party’s expansionist agenda disguised as
a national security concern. With the exception of Delta State, witness for
instance the Tribunal judgments in the governorship election petitions in Akwa
Ibom (where most of the results were annulled and a partial re-run ordered),
and Rivers (where all the results were nullified and a total re-run ordered
within 90 days.
An immediate
reaction to the foregoing examples would be that they are decisions of courts
of first instance, and that those who are dissatisfied with the outcome are
entitled to appeal. The counterpoint here would be that the law is an ass.
Appeal is highly technical, and at that level, a case already decided by a
lower court is not reopened again with witnesses and evidence. In other words,
an appeal is not a trial. Thus, an appeal can be lost on a technicality, as was
the case with Emeka Ihedioha, the PDP candidate in the Imo governorship
election, whose appeal to the Supreme Court was recently thrown out on a
technicality, which sealed his fate.
What one can
deduce from the planned expansionism by the ruling party is that its thinkers
have been linear in their thinking, failing to take along other current and
volatile occurrences in the country. Boko Haram has inflicted deep wounds on
Nigeria, and the cost will be borne for years to come. Whether we see it as a
joke, or merely the flight of fancy of a fringe group that does not have the
support of the majority of the Igbo ethnic group, the Biafra idea is rising
with protests swollen by larger numbers of demonstrators. It just might take
one ugly incident to change the tone and colouration of the current pro-Biafra
protests and then the country could be faced with a groundswell of agitation
whose end result no one can safely predict.
Besides, the
South-South feels wounded by the turn of events following the 2015 general
elections. They went out to vote, but they lost out, because the majority
carries the day. Since the advent of the new government, the trumpeting of
corruption against the previous government has been perceived as persecution of
their kith and kin, rather than a nation-wide cleansing. It would reach a
point, and we might begin to hear again that, after all, the resources come
from their zone, and that they cannot be against their sons and daughters who
served in the Federal Government.
Here, the
scenario reminds us of what happened in the case of the recently deceased Chief DSP Alamieyeseigha, former
Governor of Bayelsa State, who was treated as an Izon hero, notwithstanding
that he was impeached, tried, convicted and jailed for corruption, in addition
to the seizure of some of his properties. If the people of the South-South
perceive an onslaught by way of expansionism by the ruling political party, how
would they react, considering that most are still now licking their wounds from
the loss suffered during the presidential election of 2015?
For a number
of reasons, the ruling party would need to apply the brakes, and rethink its
options. Since 1999, Nigeria has never been a one-party state, and that is not
about to change. Tried as they could, the PDP could never capture all 36
states. Expansionism, as conceived by the new ruling party, is the new synonym
for capture, as the PDP used it when they were in power. It implies impunity,
disdain for the rule of law, the summoning of state resources and institutions
for an invidious end; it means ultimately subversion of the will of the people.
But it also sows seeds of anger and discord. If we are struggling to quench the
Boko Haram fire, why start another fire in another zone?
Can the ruling
party in such circumstance deliver on its electoral promise of security and
jobs? Can the economy grow in conflict? Answers to these questions rebound on
the inherent responsibility of the ruling party to safeguard the nation by
restraining abuse of power, in this case, an expansionist agenda.
Our final
word on this matter is to leave some food for thought. In the 2003 elections,
the PDP planned a sweep of the South-West states. Through a combination of
guile and barefaced rigging, the PDP won the governorship election in all the
states, except Lagos.
The PDP
could have deployed similar tactics that saw to its success in other South-West
states, but opted to apply the brakes, because, on a cost-benefit analysis, the
cost of trying to take control of Lagos was overwhelming. Some of those who
were on either side at the time in 2003 are today in the same ruling party at
the national level. Let them review the 2003 onslaught, and ask what lessons
there are to learn today. If they were sincere, they would overrule the current
thinkers of the ruling party, and ask them to back off from their dangerous
expansionist game-plan. (guardian)
No comments:
Post a Comment