By Salihu Moh. Lukman
The election of Chairman of
Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) finally held on Friday, May 24 and Governor
Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State has emerged victorious. Polling 19 votes out of
35 and his opponent Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau got 16 votes. The election
result was significant not just for the NGF but for the nation's democracy. One
governor, Ibrahim Gaidam of Yobe State, was absent and did not vote. The
election would have held since February but was postponed about twice.
Development around the NGF election
is not so much about Amaechi, Jang or the NGF as an association but about the
process of affirming the values that recognizes producing winners and losers
through acceptable processes. More important, it was about producing leaders
through fair elections. The dramas and episodes around the emergence of PDP
flag bearers for the election (from Governor Shema to Governor Yuguda and
finally Jang) are issues that definitely reflected existing power
configurations and the normal divisive strategies using regional boundaries
especially in PDP.
Important as personalities
represented by Amaechi or Jang and organisations such as NGF, it is the meaning
and value associated with them that might have generated interest. Values not
necessarily associated with partisan affiliations or ideological commitment but
largely driven by current relationship with the presidency. Somehow, given the
high interest of the leadership of the ruling PDP against Amaechi and the
strategic move to mobilise (and perhaps intimidate) PDP governors against
Amaechi, many would have expected that Amaechi will lose the election.
So far, what has happened over the
years in the case of the NGF is that consultations have become regular, on
monthly basis, and decisions taken were given some life. Successive leaders of
NGF, from former Governors Abdullahi Adamu, Victor Attah and Bukola Saraki to
current tenure of Rotimi Amaechi, all made their contributions. Through these
leaders, NGF gradually evolved and it is still being shaped by so many factors.
The interests around the May 24 election of Amaechi have produced additional
factors in shaping the process of the development of Nigeria's democracy. There
were basically two interests that have developed and become very formidably
antagonistic to each other. It is President Jonathan and PDP leadership on the
one hand against the state governors represented by Amaechi on the other. The
interests have broken party lines. How did this happen?
This may perhaps be as a result of
two fundamental factors. The first is that NGF being an association of mainly
state governors is an association of equals. The second is that although they
(governors) may have come together to form NGF without clear understanding of
their potentials, challenges of responding to authoritarian orientation of the
presidency, which was inherited after years of military rule come with enormous
financial challenges, and over time, activities of NGF since its
formation has created very high consciousness among governors about the capacity
of state governments, acting as a collective, to neutralise or contest issues
with federal government, represented by the presidency.
One of the reasons that made the
NGF elections very interesting was the strong interest of President Jonathan in
getting Amaechi out of the NGF. Largely on account of perhaps the role of
Amaechi as NGF Chairman in providing leadership to Governors which resulted in
situations where the governors contested some issues with the Federal
Government, President Jonathan wanted Amaechi out of NGF by all means. Some of
the issues that pitched the NGF against the Presidency include the Sovereign
Wealth Fund, campaign for constitutional review to reduce powers of federal
government in favour of states, review of revenue allocation formula, etc.
In some ways, the fact of the
consciousness by governors about their capacity as a collective to contest
issues with the presidency is not something that can be nullified through even
the defeat of Amaechi. Assuming Amaechi has lost the election, it would have
just been a matter of time before any person taking over the position of NGF
Chairman finds himself in opposition to some position of the president,
including Jang. For instance, will Jang or anyone on the side of PDP support
the presidency on matters of discretionary declaration of oil revenue bearing
in mind that what they get from the federation account is a function of what is
declared which often is less than actual receipt? Will Jang or anyone tolerate
unilateral policy initiative from the federal government that will result in
committing state governments to expend resources?
These are issues that in so many
respects conferred undue powers and privileges to the federal government on
matters of controlling resources and revenue there from over states. They are
matters that are at the heart of national efforts to redefine the orientation
of our federalism. There may be the temptation to dismiss these issues with
reference to the performance of the Governors, especially in regard to problems
of lack of accountability and mismanagement of resources in our state
governments. This no doubt does not invalidate the principles that democratic
leadership is driven by the needs of members determined through processes of
consultations.
We may disagree with the
specification of what any category of people would define as their needs. The
fact remain that members of organisations should have the right to determine
what they want and it is a normal healthy democratic requirement which should
proliferate on a national scale to guarantee national democratic order. Apart
from the needs of members, the right of dissent is also an important attribute
of democracy. Unfortunately, this too is continually being trampled upon.
Being a member of PDP, Amaechi’s
candidature is in itself clearly an act of dissent, if you like rebellion
against his own party. Together with Amaechi in this rebellion would be all PDP
governors who supported and voted for him. From the result of the election,
there are clearly 8 PDP governors, Amaechi inclusive. On the other side is also
the fact that two so-called opposition governors, Peter Obi of Anambra and
Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo have joined PDP in the anti-Amaechi presidency plot.
What this means is that the
presidency is gradually facilitating a process of restructuring Nigeria into a
bipartisan political orientation based on PDP and anti-PDP divide. From the NGF
election, it is a divide in which there are many in today’s PDP that are
anti-PDP. They include certainly the 8 PDP governors that are on Amaechi’s
side. Peter Obi and Olusegun Mimiko who are today not direct members of PDP are
aligned to PDP and it will only be a matter of time before they take their
rightful places inside PDP.
Given the contemporary political
reality of Nigeria whereby citizens are just fed up by the ruling PDP and all
the governance crisis it has produced, any rebellion against PDP may be
popular. Beyond rebellion however, there is the fact that the Ameachi rebellion
against PDP has all the attributes of being well organised. The fact of the APC
governors being united may have definitely played a role. However, more
significant was the mobilisational capacity of the anti-PDP rebellion in NGF
having succeeded to win the support of 8 PDP governors. It demonstrated the
fact that with organisation, the powerful and mighty can be defeated and the
people can take charge of their destiny.
Nigerians may have their
individual opinion. What is very instructive with the events around the NGF May
24 election of Rotimi Amaechi was that an election held and Amaechi was
declared the winner. In so many ways, it was a victory against President
Goodluck Jonathan and a victory against PDP. The interesting thing was that
acting perhaps under the instruction of President Goodluck Jonathan, Governor
Godswill Akpabio as Chairman of so-called PDP Governors forum convened another
meeting at Akwa Ibom house shortly after and declared that it was Governor Jang
that was elected and circulated some purported results showing that 19
Governors have elected Jang. Interestingly, among the 19 Governors that were
alleged to have elected Jang include Yobe Governor who was absent at the May 24
meeting where the election held.
It is not so much that the result
of the election is being contested but the manner of contest which seeks to
basically generate confusion and in the process create legitimacy crisis for
the second tenure of Governor Rotimi Amaechi as the Chairman of NGF. One would
ordinarily expect that the Governors under Akpabio would seek to redress all
grievances from the May 24 election through due process.
Due process could have meant that
they make demands which may include asking for another meeting to review the
conduct of the elections. And given that they are claiming to have 19 Governors
on their side, it would have been a comfortable majority that could have given
them the confidence to even move for the removal of Amaechi at the next
meeting. The second option would have required that they seek legal
intervention through the courts. There is the third option of sanctioning
Amaechi and all PDP governors that may have acted contrary to party decisions.
This may result in dismal of all PDP governors that are on the side of Amaechi from
the party.
The only explanation to justify
the position taken by the Akpabio led group of Governors would have been a
reflection of their weakness which would have signalled inability to get any of
the three scenarios highlighted. Since the PDP and the presidency is in control
of security agencies, any confusion may translate into influencing the conduct
of security operatives in favour of the Akpabio/Jang group and to that extent
therefore coercing structures of the NGF especially the secretariat to
compromise its loyalty to the Amaechi leadership. This will be in tandem with
what can be described as garrison mentality that has been driving our democracy
since 1999 whereby the position of the President must reign supreme and all
party functionaries must subordinate themselves to that. In some ways, this
means that the President must win every election in which he/she
has interest. Supremacy of members and sovereignty of the people is at best a
cliché for those who are interested.
The concern now is not so much
that there is an election that was contested and has produced the defeat of the
candidate promoted by the PDP and presidency. The main challenge is that the
response to the defeat by both the defeated candidate, Jang, and perhaps the
ruling PDP is to create confusion that may lead to the dismantling of the NGF
as an organisation. The implication of this is that it will give the federal
government and the presidency unfettered and uncontested power to govern the
country, including trespassing into matters that are constitutionally reserve
for states.
This is going to be very inimical
to our democratic development as a nation for two reasons. First, it would mean
that all organisations in the country must exist at the pleasure of the PDP and
presidency. Secondly, should the current approach to orchestrate confusion and
delegitimize the NGF succeed, it would mean that any attempt to unseat
President Goddluck using constitutional means can be greeted with similar
response in 2015. It was the strategy that Laurent Gbagbo employed in 2010 in
Cote d’Ivoire following his defeat by Hassan Ouattara which led to months of
crisis resulting in loss of lives and property. The international community had
to intervene to restore sanity and affirm the sanctity of the 2010 elections.
The lesson therefore is that with
the Presidency and PDP being on the driving seat in the unfolding leadership
drama in NGF, it may as well be a prelude of what to expect in 2015 should
Nigerians decide to vote out PDP and President Goodluck Jonathan out of office.
The possible response of both PDP and President Goodluck Jonathan may be to
refuse to accept the result and declare himself the winner of the election as
opposed to whatever INEC may return. One will hope that this will be a complete
wrong scenario. However, it is no doubt a possible scenario.
Against the background of
warmongering noise of some militant groups from Niger Delta warning the nation
about the consequence of not returning Goodluck for a second tenure in 2015,
this may be a way to say that Goodluck will rule Nigeria for a second term with
or without the votes of Nigerians. The capacity of Nigerian governors under the
NGF to affirm the sanctity of their choice of leadership therefore is the first
test of whether as a people, Nigerians can begin to send the right signal to
PDP and President Goodluck. That signal should in unmistakable terms
resoundingly highlight that all leaders must be elected through constitutional
means.
It is also instructive that the
victory of Amaechi reflects some political engineering that recognise the need
to mobilise across ethnic, religious and regional lines. In fact, what is very
attractive with respect to development around the NGF May 24 elections is that
divisions are not influenced rigidly by our old primordial lines. What this
mean is that moving towards 2015, the defeat of PDP may only be possible
through strong mobilisation across all ethnic groups, religions and region.
For our APC, given the central
role of our governors in the NGF May 24 election of Amaechi, to what extent
will this experience help to prepare our merging parties for the rollout of
APC? There may be the temptation to over celebrate. The truth is that APC
leaders just need to recognise that Amaechi’s victory is just a reflection of
the strength of mobilisation. The message to APC therefore is if APC is to be
taken seriously as a party coming with strong potential to defeat PDP, it must
come with strong membership mobilisation strategy!
