In January 2009, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar visited his former boss, former President Olusegun Obasanjo in Abeokuta, after years of political acrimony between them. And, recently, General Muhammadu Buhari, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and other top leaders of the All Progressives Congress (APC) were seen with Obasanjo in warm embrace in Abeokuta. These two events are eloquent proofs of the saying that in politics there are no permanent friends or foes but permanent interests.
Why, then, should it surprise anyone that, of all persons and institutions, it is the APC that has come out strongly criticising President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s response to the letter written to him by Obasanjo, especially as he (Obasanjo) was the immediate past Chairman, Board of Trustees (BoT) of the People Democratic Party (PDP) and President Jonathan, the party’s current leader?
It shows the length to which the APC is prepared to go in its desperation to dislodge the PDP from power at the federal level. It also shows the politricks and what a friend described in Yoruba as “awada kerikeri” (some form of drama) playing out on the political terrain.
In fairness to the APC and other opposition elements, Obasanjo played into their hands by his anti-party activities and serials acts of false whistle-blowing, culminating in his letter that was full of bogus allegations against Jonathan. It was these tendencies of the former president that lured the leadership of the APC to visit him in Abeokuta with an invitation to him to join the party, which he openly turned down, saying he was still a card-carrying member of the PDP. I hope he can be trusted especially against the backdrop of his daughter, Iyabo’s letter, that her father was negotiating her contesting for and returning to the Senate on the APC platform.
APC’s criticisms of Jonathan’s response to Obasanjo’s letter were contained in a statement signed by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed. Ironically, the same APC, which had earlier called on Jonathan to respond to all the critical issues raised in Obasanjo’s letter, urging Nigerians to separate the message from the messenger, is now attacking both the person of Jonathan and the contents of his response to the letter by the Ota farmer.
Targeted at the person of Jonathan, the statement described his letter as indecent, lacking in “decorum”, “immature” and capable of bringing “ridicule to the presidency.” In the view of the APC, the President had gone personal in his response and, therefore, “crossed the threshold of decency and brought the presidency – and indeed the country – into disrepute”, likening it to “the stuff of gossip magazines and beer parlour” talks. And, without explaining how, the statement also accused President Jonathan of “desecrating the presidency” and allowing it to be surrounded by self-serving, boot-licking and dishonest people…who can only be likened to gravy train passengers, rascals and knaves…”, curiously drawing the conclusion that the President had portrayed “Nigerian leaders as delinquents.”
It is highly unfortunate, especially for the APC that is accusing the President of failure in decorum, that the bulk of the party’s reaction was on the President’s person and certain preconceived lapses in his administration rather than on the contents of the response to Obasanjo. How can the APC talk about decorum in the same statement that does not show the slightest respect for the office of the President, nor for the person of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, GCFR? Is there any decency in describing the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as “acting immature” and bringing “ridicule to the presidency” or as having “desecrated the presidency” or portrayed “Nigerian leaders as delinquents?”
Surely, the APC is alone in thinking that Jonathan’s response to Obasanjo’s letter lacks decorum. On the contrary, millions of Nigerians who read both letters believe that Jonathan exhibited great restraint, especially as many of Obasanjo’s allegations were factually incorrect, exaggerated, if not frivolous. More importantly, the President was courteous and respectful to the former President in his language and presentation. And, where it was necessary to deny an allegation, the President did so without equivocation and without mincing words. There were no “derogatory labels”, as the APC alleged.
Rather than hang on to trivialities, one would have expected the APC leadership to tell Nigerians substantial issues raised by Obasanjo to which Jonathan failed to provide satisfactory answers. Is it not true, as the President stated, that his administration is “taking effective steps to tackle the myriad problems that it inherited when it took office in 2010, including corruption, oil theft, kidnapping, armed robberies and the Islamic [Boko Haram] insurgency?”
On the specific allegation by Obasanjo that Jonathan had put more that 1,000 Nigerians on a ”political watch list” and that he was “training snipers and other militia to assassinate people”, the President denied it as entirely untrue, saying that since his administration, there had not been any political assassination. While describing such allegations as “unconscionable and untrue”, Jonathan has nevertheless asked security agencies and the National Human Rights Commission to investigate them.
The President also denied Obasanjo’s other unsubstantiated allegations, including that of the $49.8 billion “unaccounted for” by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the charge that Jonathan was involved in anti-party activities and the one that he imposed Alhaji Buruji Kashamu on the South-West geo-political Zone.
Each point in President Jonathan’s letter was well articulated, politely stated and logically argued. Rather than commend the President for his honesty and for providing satisfactory answers to the issues raised in Obasanjo’s letter, the APC, which not surprisingly must play the role of opposition that it is, whether reasonably or otherwise, preferred to latch onto inconsequential issues such as the so-called morality of his making a point at a church service. If Jonathan cannot speak the truth in a church, where else would he speak it? There can be no doubt that APC’s assessment of the President’s letter is self-serving and politically motivated. The residual question is: who made the APC a judge over Jonathan and Obasanjo.
Ikejiani sent this piece via nicholasikejiani@yahoo.com
