>> Site Map >> News
Why Obasanjo failed in bid to extend his rule
#86 - 0--clubafrika--Why Obasanjo failed in bid to extend his rule--2006-06-10 00:23:25
#
Olusegun Obasanjo - President of Nigeria
Publication Date: 06/02/2006 - Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo’s backers had placed much hope on the international community’s support for his third term bid because of his economic reforms and his central role in resolving conflicts in Africa. But what he got was opposition every step of the way, writes Tony EluemunorSurprise! That is the word to describe the killing of Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo’s bid to prolong his tenure on May 16. Weeks after the bid died, Nigerians are still asking the question: “How was it killed?”
Granted that the President and his pointmen in the third term project that had heightened tension in the country had appreciated the fact that they lacked the two-thirds majority votes in the National Assembly to advance their bid, yet, such little matters made them even more determined to employ state powers to win legislators to their side.
It was for the lack of the required number of votes that the President’s supporters suspended, as it were, the administration’s much-touted anti-corruption stance and reportedly began to shell out bribes of over US$357,000 to each member of the House of Representatives and US$500,000 to each Senator. The true picture of the magnitude of the alleged bribery would only be appreciated if one considers that Nigeria’s House of Representatives has 360 members while the Senators are 109.
Where would the President’s men have got such a large war chest with which to prosecute this bribery war? No, the President did not need to raid the Central Bank of Nigeria, or to divert the proceeds from the excess crude oil revenue (whatever accrues to the nation that is above the budgeted figure. For the 2006 budget, the benchmark expected revenue is $33 per barrel, but oil has hovered around the $70 mark).
Observers point out that the first task President Obasanjo embarked on was to reward loyal business tycoons with concessions that would make their bank accounts overflow with money. Since 2003, Nigeria has been seized by a privatisation frenzy in which a favoured “loyalist” would bag a choice enterprise at a give-away price, or if he did not want the hassles of running a business, he would just shop for investors and walk away with tons of dollars as commission. It is also not unheard of for an oil block to be farmed out to the highly connected in Abuja these days. So, whenever the President needed cash, he would just beckon the business community. - Yet, as handouts from loyalists would hardly have met the huge amount needed for what could turn out to be the bribery of the century, Nigerians are charging that the Central Bank provided a large chunk of that bribe money. The government has vehemently denied this though.
With the cash handy, Obasanjo was well on his way to actualising his dream. But first, he had to keep the dream a secret. When it leaked in the press two years ago, Obasanjo’s supporters and aides derided those who called attention to the bid “rumour mongers” and “idlers”.
The first thing Obasanjo did was to ensure there were no potential successors. So he scared off presidential hopefuls by charging that talks about the 2007 elections were a distraction to his government. Then, in the name of an anti-corruption drive designed to buoy up his image, he put some high-ranking government officials on security surveillance. But soon critics charged that only Obasanjo’s opponents seemed to fall foul of the anti-corruption war.
Then in late 2005, he sent a request to the National Assembly asking for funds for a national conference in Abuja to discus Nigeria’s nationhood and federal structure. The decisions from the conference would form the kernel of a constitutional amendment. Obasanjo handpicked the majority of the delegates by nominating representatives of various interest groups, yet even with the place flooded by his handpicked men and women, the conference refused to endorse any extension of tenure.
As the talk shop drew to a close, Obasanjo’s senior advisers in government attempted to smuggle in a draft constitution. Participants cried out one day when they saw strange matters in the draft — that Obasanjo’s present term be increased from four to six years. The conference never recovered from that controversy. Even then, as the National Assembly had refused to allocate funds for that conference, calling it a Presidential conference, Obasanjo had to fund it from outside the government purse. That he was able to meet the over $600 million bill from his private sector friends should have sounded an alarm, but it didn’t.
When the conference failed to bring the desired result, the third term bidders became more desperate and increasingly more open. So too did the opposition to it.
Just as the bid had been canvassed for long, so too did the opposition to it harden with the passage of time. Even as the President — who never openly declared his support for the third term bid — was wooing MPs for the crucial vote, he was also consolidating his stranglehold on the ruling party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). By December last year, the final moves began to weed out non-Obasanjo loyalists from the party. Thus a re-registration exercise was ordered and those pre-determined to be removed were refused party cards.
Obasanjo’s loyalists were the only ones allowed to take top leadership positions in the party ward, local government and state congresses. As the PDP holds a complete majority, in fact almost a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, and as it was now clear that any legislature who wanted a re-election must of necessity want to belong to the President’s camp or he would be denied the party ticket, the tenure elongation issue was confidently introduced into the National Assembly.
Indeed, PDP national chairman Col Ahmadu Ali (who was Education Minister in Obasanjo’s military government) pronounced extension of tenure a party position and warned that anyone who opposed it would be dismissed.
Unfortunately for the Obasanjo loyalists, they failed to take Nigeria’s peculiarity into consideration, probably lulled by the smell of victory. First, Obasanjo’s Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar, whose supporters were targeted during the re-registration exercise, appeared finished within the PDP. Atiku, a Northern Muslim, re-strategised and by teaming up with former military Presidents, Gen Ibrahim Babangida and Gen Mohammadu Buhari, Obasanjo’s closest challenger at the 2003 presidential elections, united the North, to a large extent, to oppose Obasanjo’s third term bid.
Pockets of opposition emerged as politicians from other parts of the country also began an open rebellion against the PDP. The intelligentsia and the press were almost unanimous in their trenchant opposition.
As the debate in the two chambers of the National Assembly began, it was obvious that the pro-Obasanjo group would not get the two-thirds majority to ram a constitutional amendment through. They even appeared to lack a simple majority. Then two things happened: first, the party leaders, with a clear majority in both chambers, began to moot the idea of changing the rules governing the business of both chambers. Second was the appearance of bribe money.
Outcry over the bribery allegations
It is believed the money hit Abuja the weekend before May 16, and as word spread there was a public outcry over the bribery allegations, with calls to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to launch investigations. Many MPs had reportedly not even collected the money as it was being disbursed with utmost secrecy and recipients were lugging it in cash to avoid detection.
So that Tuesday met several pro-Obasanjo senators outside the Senate chambers, which was concluding the third term debate. Each senator had seven minutes to state his position in a debate that was being televised live by the private African Independent Television (AIT), to the chagrin of the President. The home of the stations’s owner, Raymond Dopkesi was torched by suspected government agents while the TV station itself was marked for demolition as it was allegedly built on illegal grounds in Abuja. When Dopkesi produced his certificate of occupancy, the government changed the charge, now claiming that the buildings were not approved.
The government targeted other media, too. It cancelled all government advertisements booked in several newspapers and magazines that had declared their opposition to the third term.
As the debate came to a close, Atiku’s own senator and political confidant, Jonathan Zwingina, moved a motion that the matter be stood down till the following week. That lull would have given the pro-third term group the chance to swell its ranks enough to muster the majority to change the Senate and House of Representatives rules to allow the tenure proposal to pass by a simple majority instead of the stipulated two-thirds majority vote.
Zwingina himself was a late convert to Obasanjo’s side. He reportedly ditched the Vice-President when he was warned that unless he supported the elongation of tenure, his Abuja home would be demolished.
As Zwingina moved his motion, it was opposed by an anti-third term legislature; the Speaker called for a vote and the “nays” won. Not satisfied by the outcome, somebody called for a division of the House, which affirmed the victory over Obasanjo’s side.
That was when a deft parliamentary sense came into play. It is a common parliamentary requirement that at the end of the debate of a bill, a vote would be taken to advance it to the next stage or dump it. That vote was for the constitutional amendment bill to scale the second reading stage and be sent to the appropriate committee for further deliberation.
Senate President Ken Nnamani asked the Senate Leader to move that motion, which was immediately countered. It was put to a vote by acclamation and Obasanjo’s supporters lost. The Senate President asked the question again: “Those in support say ‘aye’”; and an even lesser number answered. When he asked for the ‘nays’, the result was thunderous. “The ‘nays’ have it!” he declared. Obasanjo’s third term bid had died!
That was the “how” of the matter. The “why” is trickier to pinpoint. First, Nigerians have always resisted this strange madness that would afflict a leader once in a while. The Nigerian federation of cantankerous groups seems designed to disallow it. Gen Yakubu Gowon tried it in 1974, saying that as politicians had “learnt nothing and forgotten nothing” his promised handing over date of 1976 was “unrealistic”. He was overthrown in 1975! As the issue raged, Gowon advised Obasanjo: “Learn from my mistake.”
Babangida tried it, by prolonging his transition to civil rule ad infinitum, and was forced to “step aside”. The late Sani Abacha tried it when he got all the parties then to adopt him as sole candidate; he just died one night, after reaping a virulent opposition.
Second, the press rose almost in unison against the idea. That energised the political opposition. Third, certain senators were ready to call Obasanjo’s bluff. Standing out among them is the Senate President Nnamani, a well to do businessman, who would neither be intimidated by presidential power nor be swayed by bribe. He vowed to play by the Senate rules and when pressed to disallow the continued live telecast by AIT he exhibited his independence by saying no. The live telecast showed Nigerians how unpopular the bid was.
Fourth, Obasanjo has in the past seven years beaten down anyone who had dared oppose him. Many swore they would rather die than bear Obasanjo’s rule a day longer than his stipulated tenure. They simply gathered in a new party, giving those estranged from the PDP an embrace. Fifth, Obasanjo’s bid was poorly presented: To tell Nigerians that there was no capable hand to succeed him was an insult.
Even Obasanjo’s fellow retired generals came out openly to oppose him. His Army Chief in the 1970s and Defence Minister in his first term as president, Gen Theophilous Yakubu Danjuma, granted a newspaper interview where he said “Obasanjo must go.” It was assumed that Danjuma was speaking for the military. The Catholic Church came out in open opposition, too.
Tearing Nigeria apart
Sixth, Obasanjo had placed much hope on the international community’s support. Because of his IMF/World Bank policies and his much-touted economic reforms, his backers appeared to believe that the sentiment that Africa still needed Obasanjo would be expressed in his favour. But instead of support, he was opposed every step of the way. Almost every major Western newspaper had advised Obasanjo against the bid and Nigerian newspapers duly reproduced the articles. This strengthened the opposition as Obasanjo’s strong point had been that he was an internationally respected statesman.
Seventh, it appears that senators who had professed to supporting the third term bid were doing so against their will, because in the anonymity of a vote-by-acclamation they chose to remain silent.
Obasanjo’s bid was tearing Nigeria apart and some observers feared it could lead to war. With its sudden death, the country now has some breathing space as Nigerians focus on next year’s presidential elections without Obasanjo as a candidate. The 2007 election will prove whether or not the new-found promise of peace is real, and that depends on whether Obasanjo will organise free and fair elections or he will attempt to manipulate the vote.
Events of the past week point to the manipulation option: he has been meeting with state governors, telling them that he would hand over to either a governor or senator as that is the way the United States, whose presidential system Nigeria practices, does it. Last Sunday he gathered the chairmen of the state chapter of his PDP and ordered them not to attend any political meetings without clearance from Abuja.
Importantly, he also told them that he preferred the presidency to remain in the South. Obasanjo is from the South, so with that, he is daring the North, which dominates the military and produced the soldiers who have ruled Nigeria for most of its post-Independence years.
It is feared that the crises of the recent past may play out again. Analysts say the only way out is for Obasanjo to organise free and fair elections. So far there are no signs of that.
This article was first published by Tony Eluemunor, a journalist based in Abuja, Nigeria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss this article in Club Afrika Forums I Discuss this article in Club Afrika Forums II 50 Most Recent Topics - Club Afrika Forums I Board Summary - Club Afrika Forums II Recommend Club Afrika to your friend: Click Here Invite your friend to Club Afrika Forums: Click HereBlog This Topic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------comments-->0--849--7
