Connect with us

All told, the plan to honour the Abiola-Kingibe 1993 joint presidential ticket and Gani Fawehinmi, the legendary human rights crusader, is imbued with much meaning and significance, even if this does not automatically settle the matter about the results of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. The federal government should take some additional steps.

There are three aspects – the strategic, the political and the legal – to the federal government’s decision to replace May 29 with June 12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day, and to confer on the late Chief MKO Abiola, the highest honour in the land.

Strategy: Long before now, the Buhari government had needed to review its strategy of engagement with the public, move from the blame-passing, propaganda, in-fighting, enemy-seeking approach to a more legacy-driven, result-oriented mode. It is like this: When a government is in decline, and it is losing popularity and goodwill, then it is time to change the narrative. That is precisely what the Buhari government has done with the masterstroke of a special focus on June 12 and Chief MKO Abiola at a time when virtually everyone, from the Catholic Church, the opposition, prominent political figures, the media to estranged members of the APC, was carrying a placard against the government.

When you change the narrative, what you do is to divert attention from the prevailing negative discourse; you find something else for the people to talk about in the hope that this will give the government a breather, and allow it to get back on tract and restore some goodwill. Whoever suggested the June 12 and Abiola move to President Buhari is quite smart and I commend him and the government. But the “changing the narrative” strategy is not a deus ex machina. Its fall-out has to be managed, and government must be in a position to manage the gains or the challenges. This strategy can also prove to be a test of a government’s status. An accident-prone government may even in the long run gain nothing from such a move.

For the Buhari government, however, the June 12 move should change the narrative for a few weeks, except there is another accident on the security or political scene. But whatever happens, President Muhammadu Buhari will be remembered as the Nigerian president who successfully placed the proper historical accent on June 12, and MKO Abiola’s contributions to the restoration of democracy in Nigeria. The Jonathan government, which I served, had tried to do this in 2012 by renaming the University of Lagos after Chief MKO Abiola, but the UNILAG community – resident and alumni – reacted like cry-babies; they considered the name of their university too sacred, and too big for Abiola, and in the face of the overwhelming sentiment, the significance of the gesture was over-politicised.

The political: The politics of June 12 and Chief MKO Abiola has been a recurrent decimal in the debate about how best to remember the struggle that led to the exit of the military on May 29, 1999 and the role played by the pro-democracy coalition. Indeed, since 2000, the pro-democracy coalition and supporters of Chief MKO Abiola have lamented that the eventual beneficiaries of the struggle for democracy were the ones most determined to deny and erase Chief Abiola’s role in that significant moment in Nigerian history. They wanted federal government recognition for MKO Abiola. When this did not happen, the states controlled by the then Alliance for Democracy in the South-West declared June 12, Democracy Day and a public holiday. In Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ekiti, and Ondo, monuments were named after Abiola, his statues were erected, other heroes of the struggle were honoured and every June 12, pro-democracy processions were held in these states.

The celebration of May 29 as Democracy Day has therefore been consistently opposed on the grounds that it is wrong to celebrate the exit of the military but better to commemorate June 12 – the day in 1993 when Nigeria held the freest and fairest election in its history – the presidential election of that day united Nigerians across ethnic, religious and ideological lines. But as it happened, some military leaders considered Abiola unfit for the office, for their own personal reasons and therefore annulled the election. This brazen assault on the people’s sovereignty resulted in a prolonged protest for the restoration of the people’s mandate, and a nationwide rebellion against military rule. For six years, Nigeria stood at the edge of a precipice.

The decision to honour Chief MKO Abiola and Chief Gani Fawehinmi post-humously, and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) and Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) is a good move, but the question of legality with regard to Abiola and Fawehinmi has been raised…

June 12 is indeed a watershed in Nigerian history. Its formal recognition is symbolic and instructive. This should assuage the pains of the pro-June 12 group, and help to restore the memory of that moment in history and the aftermath. I once wrote about how many young Nigerians born in 1993 or after do not even know who MKO Abiola is. I was asked on one occasion by a young Nigerian: “This MKO Abiola, what about him?” In a country where history is not taught, that is what you get: An emerging generation that does not know Nigeria. With June 12 now part of the country’s calendar, the story will be told, and that turning point in Nigerian history will be recorded permanently for posterity.

foraminifera

The decision to honour Chief MKO Abiola and Chief Gani Fawehinmi post-humously, and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) and Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) is a good move, but the question of legality with regard to Abiola and Fawehinmi has been raised and here we confront the dilemma of a conflict between what is reasonable and what is legal.

The legal aspect: Are the post-humous awards really illegal? I recall that in 2014, the Jonathan administration had tried to honour Chief MKO Abiola and Dr. Ameyo Adadevoh by having their names on the National Honours List. Justice Alfa Belgore, former chief justice of Nigeria (CJN) who has now spoken up to declare the post-humous award to Abiola and Fawehinmi, “illegal” was the chairman of the National Honours Committee at the time. The advice given at the time was that the awards could not be given post-humously, and that the law should not be bent to accommodate political interests. The Jonathan government, with the uproar over the re-naming of the University of Lagos still fresh in the minds of its officials, chose to tread with caution. It is noteworthy that this same issue of legality has again cropped up. By giving post-humous national awards, the Buhari government has now provided us an opportunity to interrogate the law.

The relevant law is the National Honours Act No 5 of 1964 – Section 3(2) thereof reads: “Subject to the next following paragraph of this article, a person shall be appointed to a particular rank of an Order when he receives from the President in person at an investiture held for the purpose –

(a) the insignia appropriate for that rank; and

(b) an instrument under the hand of the President and the public seal of the Federation

declaring him to be appointed to that rank.”

The operative phrase here is “in person.” Can a dead person be honoured in person? I think not. But it would appear that upon a careful and calm reading of Section 3(3), the president is actually given the power of discretion to vary Section 3(2).

Section 3(3) states: “If in the case of any person it appears to the President expedient to dispense with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this article, he may direct that that person shall be appointed to the rank in question in such a manner as may be specified in the direction.”

With due respect, at issue is this: Assuming that post-humous awards do not meet the conditions set out in Section 3(2), can the problem be cured by Section 3(3)? And is there any manifest ambiguity in the provisions or are the words in their ordinary meaning clear enough? Or could the action taken result in any absurdity? Or are there issues of procedure that may have been breached? Do we even have a National Honours Committee in place and if so, what recommendations did that committee make to President Buhari in pursuit of its functions as a clearing house? Any public-spirited person can go to court to test the National Honours Act and raise these issues. It is the duty of the courts to interpret the law, and with our progressive judiciary, I believe they can and should guide us on the true intent of the Honours Act. Ordinarily, a national honour does not harm anyone nor is it likely to injure the country itself.

The reading of motives – all that talk about timing, the South-West and 2019 – is beside the point. In the South-West, there were many Yoruba anti-June 12 elements who refused to acknowledge Abiola as the symbol and focal point of the restoration of democracy in Nigeria, and who may still be indifferent today. Timing: it is better late than never.

However, the National Honours Act is overdue for review, and the process of appointing persons to the National Orders needs to be reformed. Should it become necessary to amend the Act, the National Assembly can do so in a week at most. In terms of process, the area of concern is the manner in which successive governments have tended to give out these honours as if they were mere chieftaincy titles or civil service allocations. Section 1(3) of the Act lists the number of awards that may be given every year, but the prescribed total minimum number is so large that every National Honours investiture ceremony ends up looking like a carnival where all kinds of undeserving persons are decorated.

Still on the legal aspect, some persons have drawn attention to Section 2(1) of the Public Holidays Act CAP 40 LFN. While that section of the law gives the president power to appoint any day as public holiday, it does not grant him the powers to unilaterally substitute a day with another as he has done with May 29 and June 12. The Schedule to this Act as it is, recognises May 29 as Democracy Day, not June 12. The Public Holidays Act would still have to be amended appropriately but since there is no plan to declare June 12, 2018 a public holiday, and the president’s statement in its last paragraph specifically uses the phrase “in future years”, the federal government has more than enough time to seek a proper amendment of the Public Holidays Act by the legislature. So, I don’t see a problem here.

All told, the plan to honour the Abiola-Kingibe 1993 joint presidential ticket and Gani Fawehinmi, the legendary human rights crusader, is imbued with much meaning and significance, even if this does not automatically settle the matter about the results of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. The federal government should take some additional steps. First, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should be directed to release the results of that election officially and for Chief MKO Abiola and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe to be recognised strictly as a matter of record as president-elect and vice-president-elect respectively. The results of that election need to be validly declared to put a closure to the injustice that was committed. This is the more important matter. The major legal issue here, however is that both men can not be accorded recognition as former heads of state – they never took oath of office, and the Constitution under which they were elected – the 1989 Constitution is no longer in existence. It stands abolished. Since equity does not act in vain, what has been done is at best symbolic.

To further heal the pains of the affected, the Abiola family should be recognised and compensated for his arrest and detention that ultimately led to his demise. On Gani Fawehinmi: I had expressed fears about the likelihood that his family may reject the honour, Chief Fawehinmi having rejected a similar honour while alive. The federal government must be relieved that they have accepted the honour.

Chief Gani Fawehinmi is of course most deserving of the highest honours in the land. For more than 40 years, he was in the forefront of the struggle for a better Nigeria. He was committed to the progress and well-being of the ordinary man, the rule of law and human rights as the main pillars of good governance. He pursued this objective through the instrumentality of the law. Of him, President Buhari writes: “…the tireless fighter for human rights and the actualisation of the June 12th elections and indeed for Democracy in general, the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN is to be awarded posthumously a GCON.”

I can only add that there are others who were also part of that struggle for the “actualisation of June 12” whose contributions were no less important, and pain and suffering no less, who should also be considered for national honour. They even did more for the struggle than Chief Abiola’s running mate, Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe who is now being honoured, not for his contributions, I assume, but merely for being part of the ticket! They include Chief Alfred Rewane, Chief Anthony Enahoro, Chief Abraham Adesanya, Professor Wole Soyinka, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, Frank Kokori, Col. Abubakar Umar, Beko Ransome-Kuti, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, Alao Aka-Bashorun, Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu, Ayo Opadokun, Kudirat Abiola, Chima Ubani, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, US Ambassador Walter Carrington and all the journalists and media owners who were lied against, harassed, shot, assassinated, or jailed. This list is by no means exhaustive but it is representative enough for the benefit of those who insist on ethnicising June 12. It was a pan-Nigerian struggle: Between good and evil, between heroes and villains, and by the way, I agree that Professor Humphrey Nwosu – the man who presided over the election as National Electoral Commission chairman – also deserves recognition.

The reading of motives – all that talk about timing, the South-West and 2019 – is beside the point. In the South-West, there were many Yoruba anti-June 12 elements who refused to acknowledge Abiola as the symbol and focal point of the restoration of democracy in Nigeria, and who may still be indifferent today. Timing: it is better late than never. 2019: there is no strong indication that this would have any significant effect on the voting numbers in 2019. The Nigerian voter may not be as stupid as we often think he or she is.

Reuben Abati, a former presidential spokesperson, writes from Lagos.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

COLUMNISTS

On June 12 We Stand, by Reuben Abati

Published

on

It is ironic that it had to take a member of the military establishment now turned democrat, that is General, now President Muhammadu Buhari for June 12 to be accorded its pride of place in the socio-political calendar of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Before now, the recognition/celebration of June 12 as a watershed in Nigerian history had been observed majorly by the states of the South West of Nigeria, thus making its symbolism and significance a restricted and ethnic referent. But that has changed, thanks to President Buhari. His decision to declare June 12 a national holiday, his award of a post-humous honour of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic to Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola and the subsequent amendment of the Public Holidays Act to accommodate June 12 as a Federal holiday is a welcome development. President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) had pointedly ignored all entreaties for his administration to take the same step.
President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007 – 2010) did not address the June 12 issue. President Goodluck Jonathan (2010 – 2015) had taken steps to immortalize MKO Abiola when he decided to name the University of Lagos after the late icon of democracy, but the staff, students and the alumni of the University rejected this, as they insisted that the name University of Lagos must not be changed. The Jonathan administration would later recognize Chief MKO Abiola as one of the major Nigerians of the 20thcentury. That administration also considered giving Chief MKO Abiola a post-humous national award, but the then President was advised against doing so on the grounds that national honours in Nigeria are never given post-humously. Obviously, the controversy over the re-naming of the University of Lagos was so overwhelming, President Jonathan chose to listen to the Justice Alfa Belgore-led committee on national honours.
Whereas all other Presidents before him failed to make a statement with June 12, President Muhammadu Buhari has now chosen to do so. Tomorrow, all Nigerians will observe June 12 as a national holiday. It will be the first time that this will happen. This should lay to rest all the conspiracies and the revisionism involved in the attempt to reduce June 12 to a narrow, ethnic event, which it is not. The recognition of June 12 as a special national event would be one of those developments for which President Buhari will be positively remembered. It is again ironic that 26 years after, it took another member of the military elite to correct the problem caused by the military. It has taken President Buhari to correct the error committed by General Ibrahim Babangida and his group on June 23, 1993 when they chose to annul the Presidential election held in Nigeria on June 12, 1993. That unwise decision became General Babangida’s Achillee’s heel, and the ugly thing around his neck.
General Babangida or IBB as he is fondly known, could have ended up as one of Nigeria’s greats, given the performance of his government, but what is now remembered as his legacy, despite the best efforts of his biographers and PR managers, is that singular negative act, his violation of the people’s sovereignty.  President Buhari is now being lauded for the courageous manner in which he has taken Nigeria beyond the denial and conspiracy foisted on the people by both the military and a segment of the professional political class. We look forward to what President Muhammadu Buhari would say to Nigerians and the international community, tomorrow, June 12. His speech writers have a good opportunity to put words in his mouth that can reverberate like the claps of thunder. They must not waste that opportunity with their sleepy prose. President Buhari should have a word for those who have kept this country down by perpetually denying the truth and turning back the hands of the country’s clock. He should take credit appropriately for the wise decision that he has taken on the matter of June 12.
I remember June 12, 1993, as clearly as if it happened only yesterday. On that day, Nigerians trooped out en masse to make a choice between the Presidential candidates of two political parties, Bashorun MKO Abiola of the Social Democratic Party and Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention. General Ibrahim Babangida was military President, ruling the country with his Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and finally getting to the final stage of a slow-moving democratic transition programme. By 1993, Nigerians were already tired of military rule and particularly of the Babangida government which seemed to have mastered the art of deception.
The people wanted the military out of the way, to allow a return to civilian rule, which had been truncated by the military at regular intervals since independence in 1960. On that day, Nigerians voted massively for the Social Democratic Party and its candidate, Bashorun MKO Abiola (8, 341, 309 million votes – 58.36%). The NRC candidate, Bashir Tofa came second (5, 952, 087 million votes – 41.64%). This was an election in which neither religion nor ethnicity – two major dividing factors in Nigeria was an issue. MKO Abiola, a Southerner got as much support in the North as he did in the South, even beating his rival, Bashir Tofa in his home state of Kano. The National Electoral Commission (NEC) was headed by political science Professor, Humphrey Nwosu. As the results were collated, it was clear that MKO Abiola (SDP) was leading in 19 states, with Bashir Tofa (NRC) winning in 11 states. On June 16 however, NEC announced that it would no longer announce the results “until further notice”.  Civil society and pro-democracy protesters objected to this. It had been a free and fair election, the most peaceful that Nigeria had ever known. On June 23, 1993, the Babangida government annulled the election and suspended the Electoral Commission. The NEC Chairman, Humphrey Nwosu went underground and became incommunicado. Bashorun MKO Abiola claimed victory. The people demanded that their will as expressed on June 12, 1993 should be respected and that the results of the election should be declared.
The refusal of the military establishment brought it into direct collision with the people and the international community. June 12 became a catalyst for much that would happen to Nigeria. The crisis escalated so quickly,  General Ibrahim Babangida known then as the “evil genius” had to “step aside” as President of Nigeria. He put in place as he left, an Interim National Government led by UAC chief, Ernest Shonekan with General Sani Abacha as Defence Chief. That ING survived for only 83 days. General Sani Abacha, a veteran of military coups in Nigeria, pushed aside the ING and its Head and proclaimed himself Head of State. To put it as it was, hell broke loose. Civil society became tempestuous.
Concerned Professionals, Concerned Democrats, Progressives, voices of reason in Nigeria across all divides, the church, market women, every one with a voice, took to the streets to say: “Never Again to military rule.” The general consensus was that the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election was after all a subterfuge by the military to remain in power and that IBB had played a “Maradona” game against Nigerians. “On June 12 we stand”, the people proclaimed and they took to the barricades. The diplomatic community even joined the protests, with the likes of US Ambassador Walter Carrington, leading the charge on the diplomatic front.  The Abacha government was bound to fail. It died a-borning. It descended on Nigeria’s civil society and the progressive camp, and as Nigeria began to witness the worst form of dictatorship since 1960, the people fought back. And Abacha fought back. Not even newly born babies were spared. Journalists were special targets: those who were not hauled into prison, were made to flee abroad, or go underground. Those were the days of guerilla journalism in Nigeria. The people at home fought, those abroad set up a short wave radio, Radio Kudirat which reported Abacha to the world. In due course, Nigeria became a pariah nation.
Three major events made this happen: the first is the declaration by Chief MKO Abiola of his due right to the mandate that Nigerians gave him on June 12, 1993. On June 11, 1994, Chief MKO Abiola in the Epetedo area of Lagos declared himself the democratically elected President of Nigeria. That speech is now known as the Epetedo Declaration. It should be widely circulated tomorrow, June 12 and on every June 12 henceforth, for it has become one of the landmark speeches in the mapping of Nigerian history, and the trajectory of our country’s democratic evolution. I am tempted to quote from that eminently quotable speech but I recall that it was in that speech that the phrase “Enough is Enough” was first pronounced as a revolutionary call to action. Abiola said: “Today, I join you all in saying Enough is Enough! We have endured 24 years of military rule in our 34 years of independence.…Enough of military rule…” And he went on and on.…
The Epetedo Declaration became another catalyst for the Nigerian Spring! It was a call to action. The people responded. Abiola was arrested by the Abacha junta but the genie had left the bottle. The people of Nigeria heard Abiola: “Enough is Enough” and they too responded: “Never Again to military rule”. Second event: On November 10, 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa, a writer and internationally renowned environmental rights activist was hanged by the Abacha administration. Third event: On June 9, 1996, Abiola’s wife, Kudirat was assassinated by Abacha’s killer squad. There were attempts on the lives of key pro-democracy activists as well including Chief Alfred Rewane who was murdered, and Chief Abraham Adesanya who survived. Journalists were murdered. It was as if at the Epetedo Declaration,  Abiola had placed a curse on General Abacha. Nigeria suffered but the people wanted an end to it all. On June 8, 1998, General Sani Abacha died. There was dancing in the streets. But as it happened, Chief Abiola also died, in very suspicious circumstances, while still in detention, on July 7, 1998. By then, General Abdusalami Abubakar had succeeded General Abacha as military Head of State. Nigerians still didn’t give up. They wanted democracy. They wanted to be liberated from the shackles of military autocracy.  On May 29, 1999, their will prevailed. General Olusegun Obasanjo who had also been framed and jailed by the Abacha government became Nigeria’s civilian president after all the turmoil.
It is sad that those who have benefitted most from the June 12 debacle have been the most desperate in denying the value and symbolism of that date and what happened therein. June 12 was a turning point for Nigeria as the foregoing narrative indicates, and it became, in its trajectory, the catalyst for Nigeria’s second liberation, that is liberation from internal colonialists, but as things stand 26 years later, we may still need to construct a strategy for a third liberation: liberation from the rent collectors who seem to have resolved that Nigeria’s progress is a threat to their own interests. By declaring June 12 a national public holiday, President Buhari has given us all an opportunity to reflect, to think and to remember. In a country where memory is short, people don’t like to think, and state institutions are constructed to erase memory, the teaching of history was even at a point “outlawed”, now it is taught as an optional subject, it is a good thing that President Buhari in making June 12 a national holiday has given us all an opportunity to do what we do not like to do in this country: to think, reflect and remember.  June 12 is an idea that cannot be ignored. It is about national unity. On that day in 1993, we saw that it is possible for Nigerians, “though tongue and tribe may differ” to unite around an idea. June 12 is a philosophy, a way of thinking by a people who resolved at a critical moment in their lives to move forward. The evil agents in the military tried to block that and suppress the people’s sovereignty, but tomorrow, the point shall be made that the truth is indestructible! We hope that there will be celebration in every state of the Federation.
The story of June 12 has inspired a bibliography that should be promoted. Indeed, apart from the civil war, it is probably the most dramatic and telling incident in post-colonial Nigeria. I have been privileged to read many of the books, which I recommend to the reading public. They include, not necessarily in any order of importance, Abraham Oshoko,June12: The Struggle for Power in Nigeria, Abraham Oshoko, June 12: The Annulment; Frank Kokori,The Struggle for June 12,Omo Omoruyi,The Tale of June 12: The Betrayal of the Democratic Rights of Nigerians;Humphrey Nwosu, Laying the Foundations for Nigeria’s Democracy: My Account of June 12, 1993 Presidential election and its annulment;  Wale Oshun,Clapping With One Hand; Wale Oshun,Open Grave; and Wale Oshun, Kiss of Death; Kayode Fayemi,Out of the Shadows: Exile and the Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in Nigeria;Joe Igbokwe, Heroes of Democracy;  and Wole Soyinka,The Open Sore of a Continent. These works represent in varying degrees, the literature of resistance against military rule in Nigeria.
The revisionists led by General Ibrahim Babangida have tried to rewrite and revise the same story (there would have been a coup if the result was allowed (!), a cabal within the military didn’t want Abiola, it was an unfortunate incident… story…); see:  their narrative is not selling. On June 12 we stand! I have also heard some people express the view that the Buhari government should go a step further and formally announce the results of the June 12, 1993 election and thereafter declare Chief Abiola the rightful winner of that election. I disagree. The June 12, 1993 process having been inchoate and the beneficiary dead, such a declaration will have no probative value. For me, what has been done serves the purpose. It would all have been better though, if June 12 had been declared MKO Abiola’s Day. He was the symbol, the rallying point, the icon of Nigeria’s second liberation in whom is fully embodied the essence of the struggle from June 12,1993 to May 29, 1999. But have we learnt any lessons from June 12?  Sadly, I don’t think so.

Continue Reading

COLUMNISTS

Magu Closes N5bn Case Against Sun Newspaper

Published

on

Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Ibrahim Magu, on Thursday closed his case in the N5 billion libel suit he filed against the publishers of the Sun newspaper, after presenting two witnesses, accorging to his counsel, Mr E. O. Omoijaede.

“This case was adjourned for continuation of trial. However, we will be applying that my lord closes the case for the claimant.

“We will be requesting for a date for the defendants to open their case,” Omoijaede said.

Mr Charles Ewelunta, counsel to the respondents, expressed dissatisfaction at the development.

“The claimant’s counsel should have closed the case instead of wasting everyone’s time. I am supposed to be out of town at an election petition tribunal.

“I have been sitting here just for them to say they are closing their case. I will be asking for a cost of N50,000,” Ewelunta said.

Responding, Omojiade said that the publishers of the Sun newspaper should save time by opening their case immediately.

“From our end, we are even helping the defendant by closing our case especially as they are in a hurry to open their case.

“We have already called two witnesses. If their own witnesses are in court, they should open their case,” he said.

Justice Doris Okuwobi, refused Omoijaede’s request for N50,000 cost against Magu’s legal team, saying that the suit which was filed in 2017, had not suffered any delay caused by the team.

“This case is adjourned till Sept. 17 for further hearing,” she said.

Newsmen report that Magu sued the publishers of the Sun, claiming N5 billion in damages over a publication that alleged that the Department of State Security uncovered two houses in Maitama, Abuja, which were traced to his wife.

The EFCC boss is also demanding that the newspaper should publish an apology and retract the alleged libelous publication.

Magu and Mr Usman Zakari, the Head of Intelligence and Special Operations Unit of the EFCC, gave evidence for the claimant.

While giving evidence on April 18, Zakari said that he had worked closely with Magu but started to view him from a different perspective after reading the allegedly damaging publication.

“I work with him closely, I know him very well. The claimant is an asset to the EFCC, he is a man of honour and integrity. Due to this publication, I don’t hold him in high regard as before.

“The claimant does not have any property out of the country. He has a house in Karo, a farmhouse in Karshi area of Abuja, and a family house in Maiduguri.

“I have visited those three property; he does not have any property outside Nigeria; that publication falsely mentioned he owned two property in the high brow area of Maitama, Abuja,” Zakari said.

In his evidence on Dec. 17, 2018, Magu denied owning two houses in Maitama, Abuja.

He said:“The publication is totally false. Even if I have the money, I wouldn’t buy houses in Maitama.

“They said the houses are located in the Darrubbe and Missouri, Maitama and that they belong to my wife.

“My wife, Fatima Yakaka Magu, is a civil servant and cannot afford to buy houses in Maitama.

“I am an international man and the publication has damaged my reputation. The name Magu does not end with me.

“The publication caused a whole lot of trauma.”

Continue Reading

COLUMNISTS

WHO IS AFRAID OF ATIKU ABUBAKAR?….Dr. Femi Aribisala

Published

on

There are indications today’s APC government is not averse to using the Shugaba playbook on Atiku.

These are very interesting times in Nigeria. The APC government has reportedly won a major election, but it is finding it difficult, if not impossible, to celebrate and enjoy its victory. Before the champagne could be uncorked, Atiku Abubakar filed a case in court challenging the result, claiming it was fraudulent from start to finish.

But this was a challenge unlike any other that Nigeria has seen before. Out of the blue, Atiku produced another set of results different from the one declared by INEC showing that he had actually won the election. Except that this other result also came from INEC. As a matter of fact, it was retrieved from the INEC server and it was authenticated by serial numbers unique to INEC.

Since Atiku delivered this bombshell, both the APC government and INEC have been at a loss for words. With every excuse they tried to give, Atiku had an answer. With all the facts apparently at Atiku’s disposal, I daresay if he cannot overturn this presidential election at the courts, then no presidential election can be overturned in Nigeria.

In very short order, Atiku has become the worst nightmare of this government. The new government is supposed to be sworn in on May 29. But what is the point of swearing in a new government when it is not clear if it will survive the next few weeks. How can you invite a foreign president to your highfalutin inauguration in May when his ambassador in Abuja tells him you might be kicked out by August?

The question then before the APC is: “How do you get Atiku to go away?” How can you get him to disappear? You cannot write him a big fat cheque in the usual Nigerian way because Atiku is a man of means whose silence cannot be bought. One approach then is to attack his business interests in Nigeria.

In May 2019, the government decided to terminate the contract between the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and Atiku’s Intels company in the handling of oil and gas cargoes in the country. The government suddenly discovered that the contract, which had been in operation for 17 years, was “illegal.”

Treasonable felony and conspiracy

How do you get rid of Atiku Abubakar? One APC playbook says: “Accuse him of treasonable felony and conspiracy.” Try him in a kangaroo court; lock him up and throw away the key.

Lai Mohammed accused Atiku of hiring a U.S. lobby firm to persuade the United States not to recognize Buhari’s re-election. Said Mohammed: “The hiring of US lobbyists has triggered questions about what Alhaji Abubakar is up to.”

What else could Atiku be up to beside trying to retrieve his stolen mandate? Although Atiku vigorously denied hiring such lobbyists, one wonders what law their hiring would have contravened. If the APC government is afraid that the U.S. government can be persuaded that Atiku’s challenge has merit, it must be because APC knows Atiku’s case is persuasive.

Mohammed continued: “There is no doubt that the PDP presidential candidate, out of desperation, is thinking of replicating the Venezuelan model right here in Nigeria.”

This is an unfortunate slip of tongue by the honorable minister. The Venezuelan model is one of a rigged election by the government followed by widespread international recognition of the opposition as the legitimate government. If the APC is afraid this can be replicated in Nigeria, it can only be because it knows the president’s re-election is invalid.

Mohammed then came up with the bogus claim that Atiku and the PDP are planning to foment trouble in Nigeria. He said: “Our interventions are based on credible evidence, and no government with the kind of evidence that we have, of plans to subvert the power of the state, attack the nation’s economic life wire, and generally unleash mayhem on the polity, will keep quiet.”

If this were true, then the government should simply arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. But instead, Mohammed merely cried wolf. He offered not a single shred of evidence to back up his fabricated allegations.

Fire and brimstone

How quickly they forget. The same Lai Mohammed falsely accusing Atiku of treason in 2019 is the same Lai Mohammed that threatened treasonable felony in 2014. As the then official spokesman for the APC, he said: “Let us remind the presidency, in case it has forgotten, that election fraud triggered a civil war in Algeria in the early 1990s, led to the killing of over 1,000 people in post-election riots in Kenya in 2007/2008 and fired a near revolution in Iran in 2009/2010.”

What then, we should ask the honourable minister, should election fraud in Nigeria in 2019 trigger? This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Atiku’s mandate was blatantly stolen, nevertheless, he has not even mobilized any demonstrations. Compare that with Buhari’s stance in 2011. As the presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Buhari told his supporters in Hausa: “First, you must register, come out and vote. You guard, protect, escort to the collation center and you wait until the result is counted. Anyone who stops you, kill them.”

When he lost that election, some one million people were killed in demonstrations in the North. In 2015, Buhari repeated the same threats of violence and mayhem. He said: “If what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood.’’

Coup plotters

How do you get rid of Atiku Abubakar? Another playbook says: “Accuse him of trying to instigate a coup d’etat by the military.

Going by the coup playbook, the Defence Headquarters (DHQ), dissociated itself from a bogus document claimed to have been written by a faceless group calling for the overthrow of the Buhari government and the setting up of an interim government. The Department of State Services (DSS) also came out severely warning those it claimed are determined to truncate Nigerian democracy.

But the question needs to be asked: how can any group overthrow a government that has just won an election by landslide? What happened to the new and improved 4 million APC majority at the polls? Is that not more than sufficient as a safeguard against illegal overthrow?

The fact of the matter is that the nervousness of the government about the possibility of revolutionary overthrow on the very eve of a “famous” victory at the polls is eloquent testimony that the so-called victory is infamous and pure fiction. Only fools conduct coups against popular governments. If Nigerian the government is running scared, it is because it lacks popular support.

There is one curious example of this in Nigerian history. In 1983, President Shehu Shagari and the NPN won a so-called landslide victory at the polls. Everyone knew this landslide was fiction. Therefore, nobody complained when, just a few months afterwards, the government was overthrown in a military coup. Paradoxically, the leader of that coup was none other than Nigeria’s current president: General Muhammadu Buhari.

The past has a tendency to haunt our future.

Shugaba playbook

How do you get Atiku to go away? There is one other playbook that is original to Nigeria. This is the Shugaba approach.

Shugaba Darman was a popular charismatic politician who was a thorn in the flesh of the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) during Nigeria’s third republic. He attracted large crowds at political rallies where he criticized the NPN government. The answer of the government was to forcefully deport him to Chad on the bogus allegation that his father was a Chadian.

Although Shugaba fought his deportation in court and won every step of the way all the way to the Supreme Court, nevertheless, there are indications today’s APC government is not averse to employing the “Shugaba playbook” on Atiku. Out of nowhere, the government is now claiming that Atiku, who was Nigeria’s Deputy Director of Customs and the country’s vice president for 8 years, is not a Nigerian after all, but actually a Cameroonian. The next step, therefore, might be to Shugaba him back to Cameroon.

The Shugaba playbook might be combined with the Umaru Dikko playbook popularized by none other than President Buhari in his first coming as head-of-state. Like Dikko, Atiku could be kidnapped, drugged, put in a crate and flown out of the country in the dead of night; only to be dropped off near his “family house” in Yaounde.

But the problem with this approach is that Atiku is always one step ahead of the government. If they attempt this gambit, they may discover on getting to Yaounde, that the man in the crate is not Atiku but his double. Then they will get word that the real Atiku is somewhere nicely ensconced in Abuja, eating tuwo shinkafa with his lawyers.

Danger man

Why is this man Atiku so dangerous? Why is he so toxic to the health and welfare of this government?

The reason is simple. Atiku is a consummate political infighter. He won every court battle he fought when he was vice-president. He defeated attempts to remove him as vice-president, as well as attempts to disqualify him from running for president. Unlike many in the APC, Atiku pays great attention to detail. Moreover, he has the resources to fight this government into the ground and come up victorious.

He is not naïve. He knew the election would be rigged. Therefore, apart from extensively campaigning for votes, he equally set up an elaborate apparatus for challenging the expected false results. My guess is that Atiku organized his defense against the APC even before the election took place.

He must have had people manning every polling booth. He certainly had computers monitoring the INEC websites. He probably had eyes in the skies, even drones, trailing the movement of curious bullion vans. I will not be surprised if he even comes up with voice and video recordings of his opponents’ strategy sessions revealing how and where they switched the votes. No candidate, in the history of Nigeria, has ever mounted as comprehensive a challenge to a presidential election as Atiku has done.

As a result, Atiku’s presentations before the election petitions tribunal took the APC for a loop. They have been having sleepless nights ever since then. Moreover, they are convinced what they have seen up to now is only the tip of the iceberg. They are now asking themselves: “What will this man come up with next?” “How can we get this man to go away?”

No chance of that. In 2017, the presidential election in Kenya was overturned by the courts. In 2019, chances are the same thing will happen in Nigeria.

Continue Reading

Trending