It is understandable that Danjuma is “ready for war to keep Nigeria’s unity”. He personally has too much to lose financially, politically, and socially should that unthinkable event happen. Except for a few personal gripes that he has had, Nigeria has worked for him a lot better than he could have expected or imagined. What he seems to be unable to grasp, is that Nigeria has so far not worked for a vast majority of Nigerians. Many of these Nigerians are becoming weary or restive. Many of these Nigerians are beginning to believe that their country is actually regressing.
Nigerians have for a long time been blackmailed by ex-soldiers who fought to keep the country united. What is often times forgotten is that before these ex-soldiers, there were non-soldiers (civilian nationalists) who fought for Nigeria and collectively wrested her from the clutches of a determined and powerful colonial power. Some of these nationalists unlike ex-soldiers, have asked and continue to ask a necessary question: Did we fight for Nigeria’s independence just to have a united Nigeria? Is Nigeria’s unity the primary and sole goal/objective of the Nigerian state? The answer to the above question is clear and every Nigerian knows what that answer is. Nigeria’s unity is important but there should be more that Nigeria could and should achieve. Should Nigerians not be worried that some of her surviving pre-independence nationalists have publicly expressed regrets about what has become of the country, given the many personal sacrifices that they made to secure Nigeria’s independence, the lofty faith and hopes they shared, and the promises they made to their fellow citizens and posterity?
Danjuma is reported to have argued a few days ago at his Ikeja Country Club presentation that Nigeria’s problem has been leadership. Chinua Achebe is well known to have identified and announced this problem in a published article and a book in the 1970s. Has Danjuma been paying attention? If Danjuma believes himself, what has he meaningfully and steadfastly done to help to resolve Nigeria’s leadership problem other than negotiate rosy pastures for himself? He seems to be more concerned about Nigeria’s unity which is great, than about Nigeria working better and much more for other than a few foully opportuned Nigerians.
Danjuma does not support a sovereign national conference. He does not have to. He says that it would lead to a “divorce”. He just might be right. Is it not the case though that the status quo might very well lead to a divorce too. Does he not realize that one of the oversights in Nigeria’s post- colonization construction was the absence of a conceptual definition of the state and also, the absence of reasonable consensus on the essence of the State? Is this not a possible reason for the absence of generally applicable dos and don’ts in Nigeria’s public affairs? Is this not why there are few settled public affairs’ issues in Nigeria?
Danjuma helped to impose Obasanjo on Nigerians as president even though he knew at the time, that Obasanjo could not win a free and fair election to any elective office in Nigeria. As Chief of Staff of the Nigeria Army in a ruling military junta, he supported the promotion to the rank of Brigadier, and appointment as Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters of a relatively junior officer over and above his peers and seniors. By that singular choice, he violated a well established tradition, order, process, and procedure that characterizes disciplined military establishments. That choice and the events that followed, helped to create conditions for the emergence and choice of Umaru Y’Adua as Obasanjo’s successor as Nigeria’s president, and consequently, the presidency of Jonathan Goodluck.
Danjuma is on record to have said that he, as Chief of Army Staff promoted Babngida to the rank of full colonel over and above his more deserving peers. He acknowledged that he had been counseled not to carry through with his decision by persons (including Mamman Vasta) who knew Babangida better than he did at the time. He, in his omniscience and perspicuity, was undeterred. The said promotion thrust Babangida forward and culminated in the Babangida military presidency. Nigeria is continuing to deal with the consequences for Nigeria of that presidency.
Danjuma is now recommending Ribadu to Nigerians as their next president because he was a corruption czar. Many Nigerians have no doubt in their minds that corruption is a consequence and not the cause of Nigeria’s failures so far, as a potentially great country. Why does Danjuma believe that controversial success as a prosecutor of carefully selected corrupt politicians and public servants, correlates and therefore can be predictive of competent and productive political leadership of a complex country like Nigeria? Rimbaud may indeed turn out to be a good candidate. He should sell himself and his programs to the Nigerian people. It is not for Danjuma’s or indeed for anyone else to declare any presidential candidate the best candidate.
Danjuma continues to explain his undiluted but misguided endorsement and support for Obasanjo as president by claiming that Obasanjo the president was not the Obasnjo that he knew. He is yet to apologize to Nigerians for his careless misreading of a man he work with and for. Is it conceivable that if Nigeria listened to him and elected Ribadu president, that he (Danjuma) will not sooner or later claim that Ribadu as president, was not the Ribadu that was a corruption czar.
There is enough in Nigeria’s recent political history that points to needless interference, obstruction and over-engineering of Nigeria’s political process by self-indulgent incompetent elders, aspiring godfathers, and other power players. Nigeria will be better served if all self-appointed seers and prophets, steer clear of the political process and allow Nigerians to freely choose their leaders, without the insight and recommendations of self seeking individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment