By Bola A. Akinterinwa
Hypothesis-building is generally believed to be reserved for academic research projects. Researchers are required to, first of all, reflect on critical questions or problematic, then come up with observations and thrusts that are to be tested in light of further empirical investigations and exegesis. Thus, like German Foundations and other types of cornerstones are required in solid building constructions, so is hypothesis required in building theories in various social science disciplines. Grosso modo, hypothesis is the first stage of research reflections, after collation of data and preliminary study. The ultimate in the continuum of research processes is the theory, the final outcome of research finding, which, under normal situations, should guide political governance. It is not hypothesis, to begin with, that should be the foundation of or drive public governance.
Most unfortunately, however, allegiance is not showed in practice to government, but not to Nigeria as a country. Political governance is also increasingly predicated on hypothesis-building, which is often presented to the Nigerian public as hard facts, and by so doing, giving the impression that President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) may be planning a fresh coup against himself and Nigeria in order to retain power by all means beyond 2023. This observation or hypothesis is largely informed by many of PMB’s public statements on his beliefs and agenda of governance of Nigeria, but to which he has not visibly been faithful. He has flagrantly worked against what he publicly professed.
For instance, in 2011, ever before he was elected, he told all Nigerians why he would not want to serve beyond one term in office because of his old age, which he believed would limit his performance. As he put it then, ‘I wish I became a Head of State when I was a Governor… Now at 72, there is a limit to what I can do (The Punch, June 12, 2011, p.2). Besides, PMB told Nigerians, following his re-election, that ‘we have got the opportunity to serve again for additional four years, and Nigerians will know the difference.’ In fact, the ruling party talked about carrying Nigeria to ‘The Next Level.’ Nigerians are at the desired level and they can know the difference. It was on the basis of the need for a revamped economy, anti-corruption fighting and ensuring national security that PMB campaigned for election and re-election.
As at today, Nigeria has become the terra cognita for institutional corruption and transnational terrorism. PMB is a General of the Nigerian Army. He was formerly a military Head of State and most Nigerians believed that his military background would be quite useful in the battle and war against the boko haramic insurgency. Unfortunately, the contrary has been the case. The current situational reality cannot but permit one to hypothesize that PMB’s attitudinal disposition points to an intention to remain in power by non-use of force, but by a doctrine of necessity, or force of necessity, or force majeure
Hypothetical Dynamics of PMB’s New Coup
A former US envoy and a spokesperson to four US Ambassadors to the United Nations, Mr. Richard Grenell, predicted in 2015 that ‘electing the APC candidate president, will be a disaster for Nigeria and Africa’ (The Guardian, Monday, March 23, 2015, front page). Has his prediction been proved wrong? Or is it too early to embark on an evaluation of PMB’s administration? What really informed such a prediction by him and by other international observers?
He warned the Obama administration of the impending and deepening situation of insecurity in Nigeria. In his words, ‘Western foreign policy observers pre-occupied with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East should wake up to the reality unfolding in Nigeria. Opposition candidate General Buhari wants Sharia law throughout Nigeria. In fact, he wants it everywhere.’ (vide pulse.ng March 21, 2015). Can it not be rightly hypothesized that PMB’s silent approach to public complaints and quests for new responses to the deepening situations of insecurity in Nigeria not an expression to ensure that Sharia is installed everywhere? Is it not also a manifestation of the observation of a PMB agenda to Fulanise the whole of Nigeria as pointed out by Chief Olusegun Okikiola Obasanjo, former President and GCFR of Nigeria?
And perhaps more significantly, Mr. Grenell noted in his ”Nigeria on the Brink,” published in the Washington Times of Thursday, March 19, 2015 that the ultimate goal of all terrorist attacks in Nigeria and Africa is to establish an Islamic State and that ‘Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance and support to the ISIS. The Northern Nigerian-based Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, wants Sharia law throughout the country and beyond. They are also actively terrorising Chad, Niger and Cameroon with their goal of Islamic State.’ This is why Mr. Grenell saw Nigeria being at a tipping point, PMB’s election as a disaster, and PMB’s election as a signal of trouble ‘for the West’s fight against ISIS and terrorism throughout the Middle East.’
Should PMB be solely held responsible for seeking an Islamic rule in Nigeria? Probably not. Sir Ahmadu Bello is on record to have said that ‘the new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather, Uthman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the North as willing tools and the South as a conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us and never allow them to have control over their future’ (Parrot Newspaper, October 12, 1960).
If we admit of this quoted statement as valid, why should any other right-thinking Nigerian be expected to accept such a publicly declared policy of enslavement of others and particularly the permanency of the rule of Northerners? If Ahmadu Bello did not want Southerners to have control over their own future, who are the messengers, executors, soldiers, implementers, etc, to enforce the policy? Is PMB not one of the implementers if he believes that Sharia law should be everywhere?
When the Kano State Council of Ulamas sponsored the Sharia Bill that was passed by the State Assembly but was withdrawn by some Governors, PMB was asked in an interview what his own position was, especially being a member of the Kano State Council. He refused to comment officially but as a Muslim and his response was very thought-provoking. In his thinking during the interview on the Hausa Service of BBC, ‘there is nothing like my position as a former Head of State. This is an issue of Sharia and so it should rather be my position as a Muslim. I am a Muslim.’
More significant, PMB added as follows: ‘if we as Muslims want amputation or death penalty, we said we want it because it is our religion and the Constitution of the country has agreed that everyone has the right to practise the religion of his choice… Sharia does not affect Christians’ (Nigerian Public Opinion Page, ”How Buhari Encouraged Sharia Law Under Obasanjo,” in m.facebook.com).
What is particularly noteworthy about the unhappiness of the Kano State Council of Ulamas concerning the withdrawal of the Bill is its declared determination that it was fed up with the ‘fraudulent togetherness’ of Nigerians.’ In fact, Dr. Datti Ahmed, former SDP Presidential aspirant, who was the spokesperson for the Ulamas, put it bluntly as follows: ‘we are happy to inform our Yoruba fellow citizens of Nigeria that we too have now come to the same conclusion. Let there be a national conference – sovereign or otherwise – to determine the basis of our continued togetherness and the sooner all sections of Nigeria meet to determine our future co-existence, the better for all of us.’
And true enough, if the Muslims do consider that the ‘penal code was imposed on them as a guise to replace Sharia by the British administrators when they were leaving’ and the people of Kano State ‘do not see any reason why anybody should be so hysterical in opposing our legitimate effort at restoring the Sharia legal/judicial system in our State who are more than 99% adherents of the Sharia system,’ why should this principle of true federalism be granted in the context of Zamfara State but non-readiness to allow the application of the same principle in other States? Is it because of Sir Ahmadu Bello’s dictum which does not want Southerners to have a control of their own future or who must not be allowed to rule Northerners? In fact, why has PMB refused to consider the report of the 2014 National Conference organised under President Goodluck Jonathan?
This is another critical dynamic that warrants special attention of its own. However, Nigerians are called upon to pray for Nigeria. But is mere praying a solution to this type of well-calculated attitudinal disposition? Pastor William Folorunsho Kumuyi of the Deeper Life Christian Ministry called on all Nigerians in 1986 to change their minds to God and that it was only unity and cooperation of all ethnic groups within the country that could bring progress. He warned that Nigeria should guide against religious crisis (The Guardian, Thursday, April 10, 1986). In fact, General Yakubu Gowon had regular prayer sessions for Nigeria at a point in time. But to what extent is the usefulness of prayers if, for instance, a group of Nigerians believe that they should be masters and others should be their servants, and in doing so, their land should be forcefully taken from them?
Calls for National Confab and Coup-Making
There have been several calls for national dialogue on several issues dividing the people of Nigeria. The decision of the Kano State Council of Ulamas to accept the idea of a national dialogue is only one of the desiderata. With the renewed and strengthened agitation for self-determination and possible separation from Nigeria, resulting in the destruction of public edifices, and attacks on security agents virtually in all parts of the country, the seventeen Governors of the Southern States met on Monday, May 11, 2021 in Asaba, Delta State, for more than four hours, to articulate how best to address the situation of insecurity, which, ridiculously, has not spared even the presidency where the official residence of the Chief of Staff to the President, Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari was reportedly burgled.
As noted in the Communiqué of the Governors, ‘the forum affirms that the people of Southern Nigeria remain committed to the unity of Nigeria on the basis of justice, fairness, equity and oneness and peaceful co-existence between and among its people with a focus on the attainment of shared goals for economic development and prosperity.’ And perhaps more important, the forum made it clear that ‘in view of widespread agitations among our various peoples for greater inclusiveness in existing governance arrangements, the Federal Government should convoke a national dialogue as a matter of urgency’ (The Punch, May 12, 2021, p.9)
For long, there have been calls for national dialogue and restructuring of the polity but PMB has consciously or otherwise turned very deaf ears to them. PMB openly and in a don’t care fashion, disregarded public complaints about his policies of nepotism. The social media is always filled with the administrative structures of several Nigerian strategic institutions where only Northerners occupy virtually all the top positions. The complaints meant absolutely nothing to PMB. The economy has nothing to write home about.
Corruption has become a house-hold name and tradition. Apprehended Fulani herdsmen and armed bandits are released on the beck and call of Commissioners of Police. The particular and very sorry case of the Governor of Akwa Ibom State speaks volumes (vide the social media). Governor Ortom of Benue State has drawn public attention to the many dimensions of complicity of the Federal Government in the attacks in Benue State. General Theophilus Danjuma even directly accused the Nigerian military in the aggression against the people of Nigeria. It is against this background that other patriotic nationals have insisted on the need for an urgent national confab and that the presidency has hypothesized that the ultimate objective of such a confab cannot but be to plan a coup in which PMB would be accused, a vote of no confidence passed and PMB would be removed.
PMB’s Hypothesis of Coup-making
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 the Presidential Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr. Femi Adesina hypothesized on the basis of security reports in a statement, that ‘the Department of State Services (DSS) on Sunday alerted on sinister moves by misguided elements to wreck havoc on the government, sovereignty, and corporate existence of the country. Championed by some disgruntled religious and past political leaders, the intention is to eventually throw the country into tailspin, which would compel a forceful and undemocratic change of leadership.”
And perhaps most significantly, the statement has it that ‘further unimpeachable evidence shows that these disruptive elements are now recruiting the leadership of some ethnic groups and politicians round the country, with the intention of convening some sort of conference, where a vote of no confidence would be passed on the President, thus throwing the land into further turmoil.’ Southerners’ call for national dialogue, and that of Chief Afe Babalola and the Presidency’s reaction should warrant careful exegesis at this juncture.
First, it is true that Chief Afe Babalola not only called for an urgent ‘Summit of Hope’ during the 10th Afe Babalola Public Lecture, organised by the Ado-Ekiti branch of the Nigerian Bar Association in his university, to discuss issues of peace and security in the country, but also donated N50 (fifty) million towards the hosting of the Summit, which is to be attended by leaders and stakeholders across the country. This amount is in addition to his offer of the use of the facilities of the university: five star hotel, helipad, multi-system hospital, and 7,000-seater multi-purpose hall. In which way will this type of Summit of Hope be seen as an instrument of a coup in the making?
In the words of Chief Babalola, the Summit of Hope ‘will discuss, suggest and take positive actions to prevent Nigeria from drifting into anarchy and another civil war.’ If Chief Babalola told the Ooni of Ife, Oba Ogunwusi, that he had the ‘charisma, the strength to convene this summit soon and he also called on lawyers to stand up and speak against the present situation in the country, in which way can it be explained that such a coup will be an instrument for coup-making?
As regards the call for an urgent national dialogue by the Southern Governors forum, it is said that the forum is ‘committed to national unity on the basis of justice, fairness, equity and oneness and peaceful co-existence between and among its people with a focus on the attainment of shared goals for economic development and prosperity.’ This statement is interesting because of what it does not clearly say: non-commitment to national unity. The commitment to national unity is conditional and, of course, made contingent on existence of justice, fairness, equity, etc, all of which do not exist and all of which explain the rationales for even convening the forum’s meeting.
If admittedly we accept the cardinal objective of the forum, including the general ban on open grazing, can the call for urgent national dialogue by the forum really imply an attempt to oust PMB? After all most of the Governors belong to the APC ruling party. If there is the need to remove PMB, is the medium of a national dialogue the best instrument to use? Is it even possible?
And perhaps most unfortunately and non-seriously, the Speaker of the House of Representative, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, has condemned the recommendation of the forum on the urgent need for national restructuring. In his eyes, it should not be the responsibility of governors or leaders to be making such calls. This type of position is expected from people and politicians who always speak from both sides of their mouths. When followers asked for restructuring, what was and what is the position of the leaders? The mere fact that the call for restructuring is now coming from the governors, largely explains why the call is quickly impacting. Government should not always allow itself to be pushed to the wall before it begins to hear and see clearly. The truth is simply that the Governors have only spoken the minds of their people and not even theirs.
Without any whiff of doubt, PMB is his own problem. The Presidency is also a major problem unto itself in many ways. Nigeria operates a presidential system of government and not even semi-presidential, meaning that PMB can only be removed by impeachment and not by passing of vote of no confidence. It is under a parliamentary system that the passing of confidence and no confidence can take place. Besides, a national dialogue is conceptually different from a national conference, and for that matter, from a sovereign national conference.
The mere fact that there is a call for national dialogue necessarily implies a quest for solutions to identified national questions. A sovereign conference is not subject to any other superior authority. Even if the National Assembly is there, the delegated authority to it cannot override the attributed sovereignty of the conference. Consequently, the hypothesis of the presidency is uncalled for. PMB’s hypothesis of possible coup to oust him is nothing more than a calculated propaganda to stay in power beyond 2023 in order to have more time to consolidate his alleged Fulanisation and Islamic agenda. After all, Muammar Gaddafi made it clear before he died that there would never be peace in Nigeria until Nigeria is partitioned into Muslim North and Christian South. There is a serious danger ahead.
