. Okey Ukaga, Thank you for your kind comments. Now, as I see it, the problem with your view is the unsupportable assumption you have made on behalf of President Jonathan. You cannot for instance, assume that President Jonathan did this because he holds those he sacked responsible for the deterioration of the security situation or that he appointed their replacement as a means of improving the situation when every evidence available does not point to that. Fact is President Jonathan, by his public statements from the beginning of his assumption of office to their removal, have solidly held out these guys as great successes. For instance, shortly after assumption of office, the President on June 8, 2010 in Ibadan endorsed the security chiefs as pillars of stability and security in explaining why he cannot sack them. Again, on 8 September 2010, in a statement marking their departure, he thanked them for their "loyalty and dedication to service", and also "for defending the Nigerian constitution at all times and for their successful command of the Armed Forces during their tenure". So, based on these facts, it would be difficult to sell the view that they were being removed for having failed. The President and his handlers didn't say or infer so, we therefore shouldn't. Thus, in the absence of the President or his spokespersons giving us a reason and with the clear evidence that whatever the reasons, they cannot have anything to do with their failure as security chiefs as the President has profusely praised them for their service on assumption of office and on relieving them of their positions, we are free to conjecture about reasons. The only thing of course is that such conjectures must be based on intelligent reading of the political situation and circumstances surrounding the removal and appointments. My view is based on such a reading and I stand by it. Now, I see that you yourself believe that the President should have acted much earlier, but I'm surprised you did not further explore the reasons why he didn't do so. Rather you went on to urge him to "be very impatient and aggressive when it comes to assuring that there is reasonable level of security in the country for without security, nothing else would work". But the question is what gives you any inkling from his actions so far (apart from the sacking of the security chiefs) that he cares enough to want to do something about insecurity? Has he done anything to deter the murderers of Jos or the political assassins or the kidnappers? Has he championed the cause of security in any way or convinced you that he has the right ideas for solving the problem? Does the appointment of Hafiz Ringim, with his questionable antecedents, give you any confidence that the police is about to wake up to their responsibility? Has Jonathan said or done anything to begin to address the fundamental causes of insecurity or the structural lapses in the security services? Of course, he will show the new men the door when he has finished making use of them to consolidate! He will gladly make them scapegoats for the failure of his own leadership and security policies, just as some of you are already making the ones he's sacked now scapegoats! Teflon Goodluck will always be stainless while others bear the stains for the failure of his administration! Look, my brother, there are ways things are done in a democracy. If Jonathan feels strongly about security, he would publicly issue a comprehensive policy statement on security, which would indicate where we are, how he understands the problem, his proposed solutions, how he is to fund and implement it and the quality of persons he needs to champion it. That way, he can sack and appoint anybody based on that known agenda and we all as citizens can then have parameters to publicly judge the performance of these public officers, including the President himself. This whole style of just waking up one morning and sacking people and leaving Nigerians to speculate on why they are sacked is unfair, obscurantist and obfuscating. So, rather than support the President's action based on unsupportable speculations as per his intentions, we should urge him to present to Nigerians a blueprint on security and published parameters to achieve it. At that point, we would be in a better position to judge the performance of the appointees in a more informed and fair manner. CHEERS! ..
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, Okey Ukaga <ukaga001@umn.edu> wrote:
From: Okey Ukaga <ukaga001@umn.edu>
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Sack of Security Chiefs: Election Game of Musical Chairs
To: "usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com" <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 9 September, 2010, 22:54
It is the duty and responsibility of the security chiefs (individually and collectively) to assure a reasonable level of security in the country. Clearly, they failed in this important task for whatever reason(s). They have had enough time to prove their effectiveness under GEJ. Anyone slightly familiar with the current security situation in Nigeria will agree that insecurity is now the norm with the situation getting worse every day. I have very high regard for Kennedy Emetulu and he is usually correct in his analysis, and may very well be right that the President did not replace the service chiefs for some national interest but simply to entrench his own position as President. However, it is pertinent to note that this is just speculation at this point. In contract, the nightmare of insecurity in Nigeria is no speculation. It is a fact of life. Hence, it is very difficult to convince me that simply because one is not sure that the president has no hidden agenda; it makes more sense to take a few more years, or months or weeks or even days of the same general insecurity under these folks rather than try news hands. How many more kidnappings, armed robberies, bank robberies, jail-breakings, assassinations, lawlessness, etc, etc, should we have before getting rid of those who are responsible for but obviously not able to deliver the security Nigeria desperately needs. If anything, I think the President should have acted much earlier. He should be very impatient and aggressive when it comes to assuring that there is reasonable level of security in the country for without security, nothing else would work. Hence, he should be ready to also show the new appointees the door should they fail to show positive result within a short time. Now, there is no guarantee that the new hands will be effective. And as I said earlier, if they prove to be ineffective like those before them, they should also go until we find those who can get the job done effectively and appropriately. But for now, we know for a fact what we got under the folks that have just been replaced and even those before them. And it was not pleasant. So I am with Ayo on this one. Folks should do their job well or move and let others take a stab at solving the problem. My 2 cents. Regards, -Okey
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of laolu akande
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:56 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Sack of Security Chiefs: Election Game of Musical Chairs Thanks fior the brief and concise analysis. Appreciate that. Now the question is: Why did you completely left unaddressed the security lapses Sis Ayo just raised? Looks like a loophole you need to plug!! Will love to read your thoughts and how they fit in. And then, in your thinking, why did Jonathan wait till now since he assumed presidency-since it is not an abnormal practice for presidents to appoint their own service chiefs on assumption of power? Laolu A
--- On Thu, 9/9/10, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o.obe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o.obe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Sack of Security Chiefs: Election Game of Musical Chairs
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 4:55 AM
Hellooooooooo! Bauchi Prison stormed and all inmates - including Boko Haram ' suspects ' (i.e. STILL awaiting trial) - freed. Commissioner of Police for the Federal Capital Territory complains that all kidnappers arrested in the 100 cases in the FCT of which the police were informed are people who had been previously arrested for the same offence - kidnapping - but released because of instructions from above. Banks in Abeokuta take a leaf from their Aba counterparts and shut down in the face of threats by armed robbers. To mention just a few.
Don ' t want to go out on a limb, but these things suggest that there is a slight problem with security in the country. Of course, perhaps Jonathan should have watched the meltdown continue in order not to be accused of planning election rigging. But if it is standard rigging procedure to put your own people into these positions, why didn ' t these intelligence chiefs see what was in the offing and get their act together so that we would all see clearly that there couldn ' t have been any other reason for their removal?
Ayo On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Kennedy Emetulu <kemetulu@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: | . Thursday, 09 September 2010 Sack of Security Chiefs: Election Game of Musical Chairs Just as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was releasing the timetable for the 2011 elections, the news came that President Goodluck Jonathan has sacked all the service chiefs and the Inspector General of Police and appointed others in their place. In principle, no one doubts the power or prerogative of the President to sack these persons and appoint others to replace them. But in a democracy, every discretionary power is expected to be exercised reasonably and in good faith, more so, in the appointments to and sacks from such high and sensitive offices as the ones in question. First, we need to understand that every position here carries its own duties and responsibilities. The President as the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief is expected to regularly check on the work of each office holder to ensure that they are performing their duties constitutionally and effectively. It follows that once he sees any reason to question the office holder or sack to him, he needs to do so immediately. It further follows that if he was doing his own duties diligently as constitutionally expected, a situation will never arise where all the service chiefs would have to be relieved of their positions all at once. I mean, these are appointive not elective posts that are determined at a time. It is inconceivable that under proper consideration, all of them will merit the sack all at once, based on whatever criteria the President adopts. The logic here needs not be over-emphasised. Now, what does a wholesale sack at this time indicate? One, it could indicate that the President as the chief security officer of the nation is so lax in his duties that the whole security and command edifice has become so bad that it has to take a wholesale sack at the top to correct it or two, it could be that the President has other agendas on his mind outside performance. On both counts, the President himself stands indicted, even if we know it is within his powers to do so. If we rule out the first conjecture and assume, for the sake of argument, that the President has diligently performed his constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief and has found the individual officers worthy of keeping their positions up till now, it raises the question of what other agenda he hopes to achieve by engaging in the wholesale sack. The only place we can find the answer is in the political environment and in the forthcoming election that is just four months away. Without wasting too much time on analyses, it is obvious that the President did not do this for some national interest. It is purely an action carried out to entrench his own position as President by having his own appointees, as opposed to those appointed by the late President Umaru Yar'Adua. Considering the imminence of the election, it also indicates that the President is putting people in place that will do his bidding towards re-election. And, of course, from our chequered history, we all know the role security chiefs appointed by an incumbent play for the incumbent in an election in Nigeria . So, what confidence do we now have for a free and fair election when he has put men everywhere that will do all within their power to protect their newly acquired position post-2011? What confidence do we have when these men, pursuant to that aim of protecting their positions, will necessarily do everything, by hook or by crook, to keep their appointer in power? Isn't this akin to a coup against the Nigerian people? Of course, I know there are those who would immediately accuse me of crying wolf or putting it too strongly, but why couldn't these new appointments wait till after the elections, if only to show good faith and instil confidence in the people that there is no hanky-panky afoot? So, without mincing words, the unreasonableness of the action is clear. It is a leaf from the standard practice of all election riggers in Nigeria . No one should read any ethnic meaning into this because appointees are not there to represent any ethnic group. They are there to protect their appointer and by extension, their own newly-acquired positions. Jonathan has not unveiled a new defence or security policy and there is nothing to remotely indicate that these new appointees are going to do anything differently from those who are there, except that they now owe their elevation to one man whose position they are likely to protect, even if it's against the national interest. After all, we haven't seen anything in their résumé or career history to show that they are new brooms. I make bold to say that by changing the guards at this crucial time, this is an indication that the President and his handlers have declared the next election a do or die affair. That can't be good for democracy. Kennedy Emetulu, London … | --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin .
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin .
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com | --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin .
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
|
No comments:
Post a Comment